Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IREIAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Organised Crime

1. Mrs. Louise Ellman: If he will make a statement on further measures being taken to fight organised crime in Northern Ireland. [159615]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Government and the operational agencies in Northern Ireland are committed to tackling the problem of organised crime. Since September last year, I have led a multi-agency taskforce involving the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Customs and other Government agencies. Our remit is to confront the malign influence of organised crime wherever it raises its ugly head. The taskforce has already published an analysis of the problem and a strategy for tackling it. A copy of those documents can be found in the Library.

Mrs. Ellman: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the new Criminal Assets Recovery Agency has sufficient power to fight organised crime? When does he expect it to show that it has made a difference?

Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The Government's proposals are set out in the recently published Proceeds of Crime Bill. When enacted, it will go a long way towards dealing with the twin evils of racketeering and drug pushing. As experience here, in the United States, the Republic of Ireland and elsewhere has shown, the seizure of illegal assets can help to destroy or to undermine the hold that organised crime has on many parts of society. The legislation will help to achieve all those objectives.

Mr. Cecil Walker: The Minister must be aware that the RUC is now seriously under strength in terms of both experience and manpower. Given the high level of interest in the recruitment programme, will he consider increasing the number of people to be recruited, which is 240 at present?

Mr. Ingram: That is an interesting point. Although I do not accept the premise on which the question is based, all of us have been surprised by the level of interest that


has been shown in the new Police Service of Northern Ireland—there have been just under 8,000 applicants to date, all of whom are being assessed. Clearly, we must look at ways in which we can, if it is possible and practical, improve policing numbers in Northern Ireland as a result of that recruitment. The initial tranche of 240 is being considered. Of course, that will be increased in subsequent years.

Mr. John Hume: Does the Minister agree that there are organisations in Northern Ireland engaging in Mafia-style activity which want the absence of law and order to continue in order that they can develop their trade, particularly that in drugs, threatening our young people? Does not that underline the fact that all of us should do everything in our power as soon as possible after the elections to ensure that we have a police service on our streets that has the loyalty and support of all sections of our people in order to deal with such situations?

Mr. Ingram: The point raised by my hon. Friend goes to the heart of the issue. Some of what we have to deal with is a consequence of moving out of a terrorist-driven society to, I hope, a more normalised society. The taskforce that I mentioned earlier has reported that there are 78 organised criminal gangs in Northern Ireland, involving about 400 individuals. The strategy that the Government have put in place with the RUC and other law-enforcement agencies will tackle that with great vigour, but they cannot do it on their own. As my hon. Friend has said, they need the support of the wider community. The best approach is when everyone joins the police service and the law-enforcement agencies, not only in tackling organised crime but in helping to bring in normalised policing in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House should consider that many hon. Members are here to listen to Northern Ireland questions.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Does not the Minister agree that the fight against organised crime is hardly helped by the European Court of Human Rights awarding in favour of people who set out to blow up a police station? Is it not demoralising to our security forces?

Mr. Ingram: I should have thought that even in their current state the Opposition would recognise that that was a judgment of a court of law, which the Government have to take into account and study very carefully. That is what we are doing. The case is not related to organised crime. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will help the Government to tackle that insidious and evil aspect of society in Northern Ireland.

Good Friday Agreement

2. Mr. Jeff Ennis: If he will make a statement on progress in implementing the Good Friday agreement. [159616]

3. Ms Helen Southworth: If he will make a statement on progress of the peace process. [159617]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): Over the past three years, the agreement has helped to improve overall the lives of the people of Northern Ireland. Further progress will depend on their continued active support for that agreement.

Mr. Ennis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Good Friday agreement belongs not to the politicians or to the Government, but to the people of Northern Ireland? Is it not important that all sides involved in the agreement ensure that the will of the people prevails?

Dr. Reid: I congratulate the politicians who have had the moral courage to support the agreement, sometimes in very difficult circumstances. I also agree with my hon. Friend that, ultimately, the beneficiaries and owners of the agreement are the people of Northern Ireland as a whole. It is they who would be the victims of the failure of the agreement. We are approaching a general election that will be very important for people in Northern Ireland, and they will make their choice in that election. However, I think that an overwhelming number of objective observers would recognise that, for all its difficulties, Northern Ireland today is a safer, fairer, better and more prosperous place than it was before the previous general election.

Ms Southworth: My right hon. Friend knows that my constituents in Warrington have good reason to understand the desire of ordinary people in Northern Ireland to be free from terrorism, and that we have been working to support ordinary people in Northern Ireland in their struggle for peace. Does he believe that, in the coming weeks, it is the responsibility of every politician in every party to commit to the peace process and to work to ensure its success?

Dr. Reid: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend said. Not only is the situation in Northern Ireland one of the longest-running problems in British history, but it is quite literally a matter of life and death for so many people. More than 3,600 families have tragically suffered a loss over the period of the troubles. I commend my hon. Friend on the role that she has played in Warrington following the tragic deaths there of Tim Parry and Jonathan Ball. as I do the centre that has been established. I think that we would all do well to emulate her example and those of many people in Northern Ireland who have overcome past enmities to build a better future.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State will be aware that on 2 May, in reply to a question, the Minister of State said that the decommissioning body had issued a statement on 22 March, stating that it believed that there had been progress towards decommissioning. However, in that statement, the decommissioning body also set an eight-week deadline. We are now within that eight-week period, which gives us until the end of June to try to make up ground. Is the Secretary of State in a better position today to tell us whether there has been real movement, or whether we are still being fobbed off?

Dr. Reid: I am afraid that 1 cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that I have received any further reports from General de Chastelain or his commission. Last year,

at Hillsborough, it was made plain by both Governments and by all the parties that we hoped and expected that we would be able to move towards substantial implementation of all aspects of the agreement by June. That remains our goal and our objective.
I think that there should be a clear recognition not only by every Member in this place but by everyone outside it that, if we are to move forwards in this peace process, we all have to move forward together. Progress cannot be made by one side of another side attempting to win a victory. Defeat for one side means defeat for the process. We all have to move forwards together, or, quite frankly, we will all fall back into the abyss together.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the Secretary of State accept that, although we talk about the progress of the peace process for the people of Northern Ireland, large sections of working-class people in public housing estates in Northern Ireland are daily subjected to paramilitary terror from paramilitaries who are inextricably linked to the parties within the agreement and alleged to be supporting that peace process?

Dr. Reid: I utterly condemn any violence, whether it comes from individuals, organised crime or those who would inflict damage, violence and misery upon their neighbours under the greater name of some alleged cause on either side of the communities there. As regards the vast majority of people, including those in the working-class areas to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. I put it to him that, despite all the difficulties, the current situation is immeasurably better than it was a few years ago. He shakes his head, so perhaps he does not recognise that there has been a cut of almost 20 per cent. in unemployment and a 29 per cent. cut in long-term unemployment in Northern Ireland, and that we have had £2 billion in new investment. We have almost quadrupled our tourism, too, and we have a sense of security that, although imperfect, is far better than it was.
I am the last to pretend that we have a perfect situation in Northern Ireland, but the choice is not between a perfect Northern Ireland and what we have; it is between what we have today and what we had a few short years ago. The situation now is a vast improvement for the vast majority of people.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I agree with the Secretary of State that there has been an enormous change in Northern Ireland over the past few years as a result of the Good Friday agreement and the peace process. Does he agree, however, that there are several major issues yet to be resolved—decommissioning to put weapons beyond use, policing and the review of the legal system? The most important of those is that weapons be seen to be beyond paramilitary use.
Will the Secretary of State also join me in regretting the tendering, albeit provisional, of his resignation by the First Minister, from 1 July, predicated on that issue? Does he agree that the whole delicate edifice built up over the years is in danger of collapsing because of that action?

Dr. Reid: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, despite the progress that we have made, there are some difficult and important issues that we still have to address.
Those include bridging the gap on policing to create a police service that is accepted by and participated in by both sides of the community, the full working of the institutions and the Executive, normalisation on the part of the Government, and decommissioning. I can think of no aspect of the agreement that would reassure the Unionist community more than some progress on decommissioning.
As for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the right hon. Gentleman has made his own decision. It is one for him to make, but I would regret it very much if he removed himself from the process at any stage. I believe that his contribution has been enormous, and that not only his personal contribution but that of the Executive of which he is First Minister are a central part of the progress that we have made.

Dr. William McCrea: The Secretary of State will agree that the people of Northern Ireland will make a judgment on the Belfast agreement very shortly, and that this Government, like any other, will have to give heed to the will of the people. By way of guidance to the people of Northern Ireland in their consideration, can he inform the people of what was actually agreed at Hillsborough? Was it agreed that the decommissioning of terrorist arms would be concluded by June 2001, commenced by then, or just talked about by then? Mr. Ahern says that the British Government have now decided to give de Chastelain up to February 2002. What is the Government's position?

Dr. Reid: I hope that I can help to clarify things for the hon. Gentleman, who seems slightly confused over two issues. One is the remit of General de Chastelain, which of course runs until February; the other is the agreement made at Hillsborough last year, which expressed the two Governments' belief and expectation that we could make substantial progress towards implementing all aspects of the agreement by June this year—and that remains our goal. I think that those were, almost literally, the words of the Hillsborough agreement.
As for the premise on which the hon. Gentleman's question was based, it is true that we shall pay attention to the election results and the Assembly results, but it is also true that this process belongs not to the Westminster elections or the Assembly elections, but to the people of Northern Ireland, who agreed it and supported it in a referendum. That is an important point to make.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: We have had many months of relative peace in Northern Ireland, thanks largely to the fact that individuals who were formerly adversaries are now willing to work together in non-violent ways. Would not this be a good time for those who have been sceptical, or even hostile, towards the Good Friday agreement to recognise that they should now accept that people are walking around today in Northern Ireland who would not have been alive had the agreement not progressed? Would not this also be a good time for those people who have tried to obstruct the agreement to play their part in ensuring a lasting peace?

Dr. Reid: Yes. I do not underestimate the passions or the pain involved in the process for all sides of the community, including Members of Parliament. It is not

easy to put aside 30 years and the number of deaths there have been. It is not easy either to put aside the enmity and hostility that has stretched back generations. However, I genuinely believe that the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland and their politicians, including many Members of Parliament, have shown tremendous moral courage. I would encourage all Members to recognise, even at this late stage, that there is no alternative to the Good Friday agreement as a platform.
In so doing, and with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a sincere thank you on behalf of the House and the people of Northern Ireland to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who will leave us, at least in this forum. They have made a major contribution to the business of the House to the benefit of the people they represent, as well as all of the people of Northern Ireland. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, I ask the Chamber to be silent while hon. Members are addressing the House.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Belfast agreement was rightly and inevitably a huge compromise on the part of those who took part and that it will take the peace process forward only if the undertakings given at Hillsborough are implemented in full?

Dr. Reid: I entirely accept that. There can be no movement forward unless all the parties to the agreement carry out their part in it. There is much talk of rights in Northern Ireland, and we have met those demands for rights with the equality and human rights legislation and with a raft of other legislation and policies aimed at defending the individual and sections of the community. Along with those rights go responsibilities, and it is the responsibility of all of us involved in the agreement to play our part in ensuring full implementation.

Mr. MacKay: So will the Secretary of State now accept that the only people who have failed to fulfil their obligations under the agreement are the paramilitaries, both so-called loyalists and republicans, who have failed to decommission one single gun or one ounce of Semtex? Is not it therefore inevitable that their political representatives cannot for much longer remain Ministers in the Executive? Will the Secretary of State join me in supporting the First Minister and the signing of his post-dated letter to Lord Alderdice as the right way forward?

Dr. Reid: As far as the First Minister is concerned, I have made my view plain. However, I cannot agree with the sentiments of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), because his argument has a flawed logic. First, it is a peace process, not a peace event, and it is therefore natural, in both historical and practical terms, that there will be movement on different issues at different times.
Secondly, I have already said that all of us have responsibilities and not just rights, and it is neither useful nor sensible to point the finger at one group. Having said that, if the right hon. Gentleman's question was a coded message for the question, "Wouldn't it be helpful and useful to the Unionist community to have progress on


decommissioning?", the answer is yes. However, I also want to see progress on policing, with the two sides coming together. and on demilitarisation and normalisation. There are many better things that the British Army is needed for than patrolling alongside the police in south Armagh and I look forward to the day when that no longer happens. Yes, we want to see decommissioning, but not on its own because we want to see other things. We hope to achieve that goal by June, as the First Minister has made plain.

Barnett Formula

4. Mr. David Trimble: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the Barnett formula. [159618]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): I regularly discuss a range of issues with ministerial colleagues. This issue was among a number raised with me recently by the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Minister for Finance and Personnel, Mark Durkan. The Government have no plans to change the Barnett formula.

Mr. Trimble: With regard to—(Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask the House to come to order? The commotion is unfair to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Trimble: When the Minister next speaks to his ministerial colleague, who is noted more for the noise that he makes than the sense, will he point out that the Barnett formula is a purely mathematical formula that gives the regions the per capita increases that occur elsewhere? In England and Wales, average real-terms expenditure is expected to rise over the next three years by 6 per cent. in round figures. The equivalent figure in Scotland is 5 per cent.; in Wales it is 4 per cent. and in Northern Ireland 3 per cent. Will he point out that the formula does not operate very fairly?

Mr. Howarth: As the right hon. Gentleman has just made clear, per capita spending in addition to baseline spending is apportioned by applying the Barnett formula. For Northern Ireland, that delivers a lower percentage increase on the existing baseline because Northern Ireland starts from a higher per capita basis than any other region in the United Kingdom.
The Barnett formula and its operation are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose officials are in regular contact with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations. At present, there are no plans to change Barnett, as I have already said, beyond updating it from time to time to take account of changes in the relative population in each part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. John McFall: Does the Minister agree that the Barnett formula has indeed been good for Northern Ireland? Economic growth there is at 4 per cent., unemployment is at unprecedentedly low levels of below

6 per cent., and investment has risen by 75 per cent. over the past five years. Would not any tinkering with the Barnett formula need to be looked at very carefully? It is a sensitive issue. The formula has delivered in economic terms for Northern Ireland. and has served the peace process well.

Mr. Howarth: In response to my hon. Friend's second question, I should say that there are no plans at all of the sort that he mentioned. I agree entirely that the peace process is delivering in terms of equality and in terms of a proper basis for human rights in Northern Ireland. It is also delivering the highest levels of economic growth anywhere in the UK. The peace process is a success.

Paramilitary Prisoners

5. Mr. Michael Connarty: What procedures he has put in place to monitor the activities of former paramilitary prisoners; and if he will make a statement. [159619]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Arrangements are in place to ensure that the Northern Ireland Prison Service is advised if any former prisoner, including former paramilitary prisoners, who is subject to licence conditions comes to the attention of the police for adverse behaviour. It is then for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider whether such a prisoner has breached the terms of the licence, and to make a decision on recall to prison.

Mr. Connarty: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does not he think that people in other parts of the UK might have more confidence in the Good Friday agreement if events such as have occurred in my constituency were not possible? A cowardly UVF murderer who killed innocent Protestants and Catholics is now threatening the people in my constituency. Would not it be better if the licence contained the simple wording that appears in the equivalent licence for Scottish prisoners, which enjoins prisoners that they
shall be of good behaviour and shall keep the peace"?
Would not that give the police some leverage when it came to reporting misdemeanours?

Mr. Ingram: I am aware that a former life sentence prisoner who was given early release under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 has been presenting problems for the social work services in Falkirk, and therefore for the community as well. Arrangements are in place to ensure that the Northern Ireland Prison Service is told of any former prisoner who is subject to licence coming to the attention of the police, whether in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland. The police in my hon. Friend's constituency have not as yet drawn this case to the attention of the Prison Service. If my hon. Friend cares to write to me with further details of the case, I will give it active consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Philip Hammond: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 May.

The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.

Mr. Hammond: We now know that the Prime Minister's contact with the Hinduja brothers' was far greater than he has disclosed, including a stream of correspondence and at least two meetings. Can the Prime Minister explain why he did not tell Sir Anthony Hammond's inquiry that he attended a private dinner at the Hinduja brothers' London residence just six months before the Government granted a passport to G.P. Hinduja?

The Prime Minister: If the hon Gentleman has any complaints about my propriety or anyone else's, he should make them to the proper authorities in the proper way. However, I think that that question says a lot about today's Conservative party. Conservative Members do not want to talk about the economy, the health service, schools or jobs, and that is because, on the serious issues of the day, they have nothing whatever to say.

Dr. Desmond Turner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even in my south-coast city of Brighton and Hove there are still thousands of people in social exclusion, still suffering from the after effects of 18 years of Tory rule? [Interruption.] Will he ensure that the next Labour Government continue the war on poverty and social exclusion, wherever they are found—north or south—into the next Parliament?

The Prime Minister: From the reaction of Conservative Members, I think that they are suffering from 18 years of Conservative Government.
The measures that we have taken on social exclusion, including the new deal, which has helped to cut youth unemployment by more than a half, the working families tax credit, which has given hope to more than 1 million families, and the extra investment going into our schools system, help every citizen in need in our country. The choice is between this party, which would keep those measures and build on them, and the Conservative party, which would get rid of them.

Mr. William Hague: Will the Prime Minister join me in wishing well Members of all parties who have announced that they are leaving the House, including two who came here more than 50 years ago—my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who will certainly be missed on both sides of the House, and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who will mainly be missed on our side of the House?
On other matters, at the last election the Prime Minister said that he loved the pound. Will he renew this worthless vow in this election?

The Prime Minister: Let me join the right hon. Gentleman in what he said about the Father of the House and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. Personally, 1 wish that they were both staying—for different reasons.
On the pound we have set out our position many times. In principle, we are in favour of joining a single currency. In practice, the economic conditions have to be met. The difference between the two political parties is that, should we recommend that we join the single currency, we will give the final say to the British people in a referendum. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can explain how he can be against the single currency in principle, but only for five years?

Mr. Hague: Two weeks before the last election, this article appeared:
Tony Blair last night declared for the first time that he loved the pound. He said,'I know exactly what the British people feel when they see the Queen's head on a ten-pound note. I feel it too. There are emotional issues involved in the single currency… it's about the sovereignty of Britain.'
Was not his emotional exploitation of the Queen's head before the last election just like his emotional exploitation of schoolchildren at this election? And why does he not come clean, be straight with people and admit that he wants to ditch the pound as soon as he can get away with it?

The Prime Minister: We said before the last election that the test would be what was right for British jobs, British industry and British investment, and that is indeed the test. Should we recommend to people that we join the single currency, of course the people will have the final say in a referendum. What we should not do as a country is isolate and marginalise ourselves in Europe, when 3 million jobs in this country depend on Europe.
As for schools, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is this Government who have cut class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds, and who have put a huge investment into our schools. Thousands of schools up and down the country have had money under the new deal for schools. Again, the difference is that we would keep that money and build on it and the right hon. Gentleman would cut that money.

Mr. Hague: Even the schoolgirls yesterday saw straight through the right hon. Gentleman. As we read in this morning's press:
One girl covered her head with her pullover as Mr. Blair rambled on about devolution. One wrinkled her nose and said, 'He's a big crook'"—
No wonder they made it a beacon school.
The right hon. Gentleman said in one of his famous memos:
On the euro we need to be…clearer. The truth is the politics is overwhelmingly in favour…and it would be far better to be open and upfront about this.


That was him, so let him now be open and upfront with the people of the country. Will he now come clean with the people of this country and say that he wants to ditch the pound at the earliest opportunity?

The Prime Minister: First of all, in respect of the euro, let me repeat to the right hon. Gentleman, in principle we are in favour. In practice the economic conditions have to be met, and the difference is between our commitment to determine that according to what is good for British jobs, British industry and British investment and the right hon. Gentleman's determination that people should not even have the choice of joining the single currency, even if it is right for jobs and investment. Again he refuses to explain why, if he is against the single currency in principle, he is only against it for five years—a fatuous policy.
As for the rest of what the right hon. Gentleman says, I think that that is an indication of how he intends fighting this campaign. Let me tell him how we intend fighting the campaign. First of all, we shall start with the economy, and let me spell out the difference between us. Under the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member there were 3 million unemployed and interest rates of 15 per cent., and national debt doubled; this party has the lowest inflation in Europe, mortgage rates half of those in the Tories' years and a million more people in work. Now if the right hon. Gentleman wants a proper debate and campaign, let him get up and ask a question on the economy.

Mr. Hague: The right hon. Gentleman briefed the newspapers yesterday that he wanted to take on the Tories over Europe, so come on, take on the Tories over Europe, instead of whining about it when we ask about Europe. In the last year I have asked the right hon. Gentleman 20 questions on health, and answers we have had zero; 23 on crime, answers zero; 38 on tax and the economy, answers zero. So now answer a question about Europe. The central deception before the last election was that the right hon. Gentleman claimed to love the pound and the moment it was over, he prepared for joining the euro. And is not the central deception at this election that he pretends to give people a choice while planning to bounce them into the euro? Does not that leave the only choice for people who want a straight and honest approach to Europe to support the Conservative party?

The Prime Minister: In respect of the euro, it is important that we give the British people a choice. Should we recommend that we join the euro, they will have the final say in a referendum, and that is as it should be on a decision of that importance, but as we are debating Europe, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that his policy is to oppose the treaty of Nice and, therefore, the enlargement of the European Union and to renegotiate Britain's essential terms of entry into the European Union. He has been unable, throughout the course of the last few years, to name one other country that supports those two positions, so perhaps if we have some quiet, we will now let Conservative Members shout out the name of one country that supports that position. There is none. He will therefore go into the election promising to renegotiate the essential terms of our entry into the European Union. That will put jobs at risk, investment at risk and industry at

risk, so I am happy to debate Europe with him, but I think it remarkable that he is unable to debate the economy, schools, hospitals and crime.

Mr. Hague: Only one of today's party leaders has ever campaigned for withdrawal from the European Union, and it was not me and it was not the chap on his knees over there; it was the Prime Minister. His spin and broken promises on the euro are like his spin and broken promises on everything else; he said things could only get better, but secondary school class sizes are the highest for 25 years, hospital waiting lists are up, the asylum system is in chaos, the transport system is at a standstill, violent crime has soared and the rights and powers of our country are being given away Why does he need a second chance to be all spin and no delivery?

The Prime Minister: Let us judge whether we have delivered on our promises by reference to a particular constituency—how about Richmond, Yorks for example? In Richmond, over 17,000 pensioners have benefited from the winter allowance of £200, and over 8,000 will benefit from the free TV licences. Since April 1997, long-term unemployment in Richmond is down 60 per cent. through the new deal. Waiting lists in the right hon. Gentleman's health authority are down 1,500, and there are 400 more nurses. At the present time as we speak, £600,000 is being spent on the Friarage hospital, Northallerton's accident and emergency department. The following schools have benefited from the new deal for schools: Applegarth primary, Brampton primary, Northallerton college, Richmond secondary school and Stokesley secondary school. In respect of class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds, the number in his constituency over 30 is now zero. In addition, in the past year, crime has fallen by 6 per cent. In addition, over 11,000 families have benefited from child benefit increases. So we will let the country judge whether the negative rant on his side or the specifics on mine arc more credible.

Mr. Giles Radice: As a retiring Labour Member, may I wish my right hon. Friend, and hon. Friends, every success in the coming election? May I say that the Government have successfully combined economic competence with social justice and compassion and thoroughly deserve a second term, which will be vital for the future of tin country, especially in its relations with the European Union?

The Prime Minister: That is, of course, right because if the Conservative party were elected and pursued the policy of opposing the treaty of Nice, which would wreck the enlargement process, and of renegotiating Britain's essential terms of entry into the European Union, the effect, since no other country in the entire European Union would support it, would be to face this country with a choice of either humiliation or exit from Europe, and neither is a very palatable choice to face. That is why I say that the right hon. Gentleman may make his jokes at the Dispatch Box, but during the campaign, he will have to answer those points on Europe, and he has no answers to them.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: In yesterday afternoon's homily, the Prime Minister acknowledged that his Government had failed to


deliver in certain specific key policy areas. Looking back over the course of this Parliament. what is the Prime Minister's greatest personal disappointment on policy?

The Prime Minister: It is obviously the case that in the first two years, as a result of the need to get the deficit down—the doubled national debt and the high borrowing we inherited from the Conservatives—tough spending decisions were taken. However. we now have a stable economy; we have mortgage rates that are about half what they were during the Tory years; there is low inflation and there are more jobs in the economy. Investment is going into every area of our public services. Of course, it will take time to see that investment through, but the essential difference between ourselves and the Conservatives is that we want that investment to go in while they would cut it and take it out.

Mr. Kennedy: The Prime Minister could have mentioned schools, where secondary class sizes have gone up. He could have mentioned hospitals, where out-patient waiting times have soared, or he could have mentioned crime, where there are fewer police. With hindsight, does he not regret sticking to the Tory spending plans during most of this Parliament? Did not he raise hopes so high for millions at the previous election that by this election millions are deeply disappointed in him?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not regret the tough first two years because they were necessary. We wanted to avoid the situation that we got into during the early 1990s—the same policies that the Conservatives have at present. We would have ended up in the same position—boom and bust, high interest rates, high levels of unemployment, and with many people in the country in difficulty. So those first two years were necessary.
In respect of the specifics, the right hon. Gentleman's comments are either wrong or incomplete. It is correct that out-patient numbers went up during the first two years; now they are falling. The in-patient waiting lists have fallen by more than 100,000, as we pledged. On secondary school class sizes, the number is 0.3 of a pupil—it was going up for years before we came into office. However, we said that the priority was to get class sizes down for five, six and seven-year-olds—that we have done.
Police numbers were falling for years under the Conservatives. Because of tough spending limits, I agree that those numbers carried on falling during the first three years. During the past year, however, they have risen by 1,400 and during the next three years, if the country backs the investment going in, we shall have the largest-ever number of police in this country.

Mr. Tony Benn: May I thank the Prime Minister for all his very hard work during the past four years and the Leader of the Opposition for the help that he has given during that time? May I also express the hope that on 7 June people realise that many thousands sacrificed their lives to give us the vote, and that if people do not use it they betray that inheritance? Finally, will he believe me when I say that this is not a coded request for

a peerage? I do not believe that in the second Chamber—however reformed—it would be possible to pursue an interest in democratic politics.

The Prime Minister: I am not sure how to answer the last part of that question. I thank my right hon. Friend for his support in the coming election. Whatever disagreements we may have had in the Labour party, I think that most people in the country have a deep respect for his integrity and for his sense of devotion to the House.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: This is my last ever Prime Minister's question; indeed, it is the first time that my name has appeared in this part of the Order Paper since February 1997—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Is the Prime Minister content with the state of higher education under his Government? Is he happy that even though research funds secured are now the only yardstick for judging university staff, the starting salary of a researcher in a London university is £4,000 less than the starting salary of an assistant lift attendant on the London underground? Is that really his commitment to "Education, education. education"?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that we need more resources in further and higher education which is, of course, why we are putting that money in. However, our priority during the first few years was to get the money into nurseries and primary schools. In the second term, if we are elected, we also want to get money into secondary schools and universities. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that, whereas under the previous Conservative Government the funding of science fell very, very sharply, under the Labour Government we shall be making a larger investment in science than this country has seen since the 1960s. Of course, it is only because we have been able to reform the system of student finance that we are able to get the money that does go into further and higher education actually into the front line of university provision.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: After four years of steady progress in creating jobs in my constituency, does my right hon. Friend recognise the devastating impact of the closure of the Plaxton bus factory in my constituency, which is detailed in early-day motion 645? Will he endorse the progress made in the few days since last Thursday by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in setting up a rapid reaction force to work for the people of Scarborough and North Yorkshire? Will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will do his best to make sure that bus building in Scarborough survives?

The Prime Minister: I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am aware of how important that industry is to his constituency and I welcome the progress made at recent meetings between my hon. Friend, the trade unions, the management, the Minister for Competitiveness, and other interested parties. Looking at all the options for sustaining a viable work force is the right way forward and we remain hopeful that, with the right spirit of


partnership, which has certainly been present there up to now, we shall be able to find a way forward for my hon. Friend's constituents and the industry.

Q4. [159648] Sir Archie Hamilton: The Prime Minister knows that I always give him credit where it is due. I should like to congratulate him on a speech on welfare spending that he made in 1997, in which he said that the rate of spending on welfare in this country was unsustainable, the country could no longer afford it, and the money was going to all the wrong people. Why then, since he has been in power, has the welfare budget gone up by £20 billion, why is it consuming the same percentage of national resources as it was in 1997, and why by 2004 will the percentage of families receiving means-tested benefits have risen from 24 per cent. in 1999 to 40 per cent.?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman reminds me that I said that the money should go to the right people. That is precisely what is happening—it is going to right people. The money to which he refers includes pensions, the £200 winter fuel allowance, free television licences and extra pension money, as well as the working families tax credit, which is also important.
What I actually said in 1997 was that we had to distinguish between the bills of economic and social failure under the Conservatives and the social security spending that we wanted to be increased, such as pensions and help for low-income families. That is what we have done. Measures such as the new deal combined with the strength of the economy have resulted in the bills of economic and social failure falling and in our having £5 billion extra to put into schools, hospitals, police and transport. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for reminding of what I said in 1997; I am pleased to say that we have done it.

Q5. [159649] Mr. Michael Connarty: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the minimum wage, which was introduced by this radical Government in the teeth of opposition from the Tories and without even one Scottish National party Member of Parliament bothering to turn up to vote for it, is being undermined to a terrible extent in the catering and hospitality industry? When he forms his next radical Government in a few weeks, will he consider introducing legislation to stop rip-off bosses paying catering workers £2 an hour, then topping up wages to the minimum wage using credit card payments and tips given into restaurant kitties?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the problem. As my hon. Friend will know, the Low Pay Commission made some statements on it recently. The minimum wage has meant that hundreds of thousands of families have been able to get a decent income for the first time in their lives. It must be seen alongside the working families tax credit, because the combination of those two measures has resulted in many low-income families having a minimum income for the first time, and many people being willing to go out and get jobs because they are paid more to work than they used to be paid on benefits.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Prime Minister recall that in 1998, when the people voted for the Belfast agreement, they rightly anticipated the

decommissioning of illegal firearms in Northern Ireland? I should like to place on record my appreciation of the work done by the Prime Minister and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), on Northern Ireland issues: they have helped us greatly.
However, does the Prime Minister recall that one year ago, in May, the IRA said that it would put its arms beyond use by June 2001? Does he agree that that appears not to be happening? Does he understand that the decommissioning of illegal firearms is tremendously important to the people of Northern Ireland if peace and democracy are to be sustained? I was glad to hear the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) say so earlier this afternoon. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, if he remains Prime Minister after the election, he will ensure that it continues to be an obligation that the IRA decommissions its illegal arms in Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: First, may I reciprocate by saying how much I value the work that the right hon. Gentleman has put into the peace process in Northern Ireland in the past few years? He has made an enormous contribution, and I thank him for that. In respect of decommissioning paramilitary weapons, of course that should happen. We are aware of the obligations under the Good Friday agreement, which must be honoured in full. I very much hope that we will be able to make progress on that and other outstanding issues, which we will do as quickly as possible if we are re-elected to form the Government of this country. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that, whatever the difficulties of the process, there is no doubt at all that for the people of Northern Ireland it offers the only sensible and secure way forward. That is why, whatever the problems, we shall certainly do everything that we can to ensure that the obligations of all parties under the agreement are fully honoured.

Mr. Eric Clarke: This is my last contribution to the House because I, too, am retiring. I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government for all they have done for the mining communities in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, especially with regard to emphysema, bronchitis, white finger and the money that has been given to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust to help those communities. However, one bit of business is not finished—my right hon. Friend is smiling because he knows what I am going to say. What are we going to do for the men who were sacked during the miners strike? Can we start by buying them back into the miners pension fund?
To hon. Members on both sides of the House, and everyone who has been a friend, I say thank you—it is nice knowing you.

The Prime Minister: In respect of the sacked miners, my hon. Friend knows of the discussions on that. It is a difficult issue, for reasons with which he is well familiar and that I have outlined to him personally. On the mining communities as a whole, I am glad he recognises the substantial investment that has been made in them. We have not merely tried to save the existing mines, but have ensured that those people who suffered—and there is considerable physical suffering as result of working down the mines—are properly compensated. I know that that has also taken time, because each case has to be


individually considered, but the commitment is there. As a result of the work done by the Deputy Prime Minister, an enormous amount of investment has gone into the coalfield communities to help them get back on their feet and have a decent standard of living for their people when the mining industry has finished in their area.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: If the Prime Minister has influence over the agenda of the next Government, will he build on the achievements of this Parliament in reforming the two Houses of our legislature? Will he advance the process of democratisation and give the people of Britain an opportunity to vote for a fairer electoral system for the two Houses of Parliament?

The Prime Minister: On the later question, I have nothing to add to what I said before in the House. On the former, I would not agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Gentleman's agenda for reform of the House of Lords. It is important that we initiate a reform that makes it more representative, but which does not end up in gridlock or competition between the two Houses of Parliament. That we will endeavour to do.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend share the dismay of charities, churches and aid organisations that are appalled at the Opposition's decision to oppose the Internationa1 Development Bill, which is one of the finest pieces of legislation? Does he agree that if, at this eleventh hour, they do not change their mind, his new Government will make the commitment to the poorest people in the poorest countries a major aspect of his agenda?

The Prime Minister: I hope very much that the Opposition would support the International Development Bill. It is an important Bill that indicates what I have to say is a clear and sharp division of values between the two sides of the House. One of the proudest achievements

of this Government over the past few years has been writing off large amounts of debt and increasing aid and development as a proportion of our national income. It is a tragedy that the Opposition remain opposed to those policies, which I believe are supported by the vast majority of people in the country.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: This is the last question to the Prime Minister, so he can relax now.
The Prime Minister spoke to children in a school in Southwark yesterday, so will he reflect on the fact that every child there receives support from the Government to the tune of £42,700? Will he also reflect on the fact that, had he chosen to hold that meeting in Stockport, every child there receives only £27,400? Does he believe that his boast of "Education, education, education," has been fulfilled when there are such gross inequities in the funding of schoolchildren in different parts of the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: There are issues in respect of the funding of local authorities, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is the subject of a local government finance Green Paper that will be succeeded by a White Paper in October. However—whether in Stockport or any other part of the country—as a result of what the Government have done, there are huge amounts of additional investment going into education. There is the largest amount of money going into education over the next few years that this country has seen for a very long time, if not ever. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, who is a Liberal Democrat, that we are putting in far more investment than his party ever sought at the previous general election. It is all part of the investment that is going into our schools, our hospitals, our transport and our police and we are doing that on the basis of a strong and stable economy. It is the combination of a stable economy and investment in public services that I believe will recommend itself to this country.

Personal Statement

Sir Edward Heath: I was absolutely delighted, as I am sure was the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), by the glowing tribute that the Prime Minister paid to us at the beginning of his remarks. It was inspired, no doubt, by the first half of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—the second half was not quite in the same vein. I should like to thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to make this personal statement as my final contribution to the proceedings in this Parliament. The fact that it is a final contribution explains why I am using a script for the first time since I ceased to be Prime Minister.
As a retiring Member, I am grateful to the electors of Bexley for returning me as their representative in 14 successive general elections. It has been an honour and a privilege as well as a pleasure to serve them. I should also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the staff of the House. These often forgotten people—Clerks, security staff, librarians, catering staff and others—ensure that this place runs so efficiently. As Father of the House, I feel a certain responsibility to ensure that we appreciate what they do and pay tribute to them.
You, Mr. Speaker, are also deserving of my thanks. In allowing the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and myself the freedom of the House, you have kindly allowed us to continue to use some of the facilities of this establishment.
It is more than 51 years since I became a Member of the House and I remember full well the impact that it made on me in those early days. In fact, I had been a Member only a few months when I was invited to become a Whip and a member of the Conservative Opposition. As a result, I spent my first 25 years here on the Front Bench, either in government or in opposition. After that, I spent the next 25 years—on the Front Bench—[Laughter]—below the Gangway. During that time, I learned a great deal, particularly when I was first a Whip—in fact, that was the reason why I became a Whip.
In those days, the Whips had a place at the Door and, if they wanted to, they kept Members in or let us pass. When our Whip asked one of our Members, "Have you got a pair?", he said, "No" and went on. The Whip said, "Well, you can't go out. Get a pair." "No, I haven't got a pair," replied the Member. Whereupon our enthusiastic Whip jumped up, gave him a hefty kick in one of the usual places, and the man fell flat on the floor. He had to be picked up and set on his feet; he went to the Chief Whip and complained. As a result, the Whip himself was changed; I was sent for and invited to take his place. The result was a notice in The Times the next day, to this effect:
Colonel Walter Bromley Davenport, MP for Knutsford, majority 16,913. He has resigned in order to give greater attention to his constituents. His place is now being taken by Mr. Edward Heath, MP for Bexley, majority 133.
That is how I began my climb to fame. The next day, I was taken to see Churchill, who patted me on the shoulder and said, "Yes, of course you can be a Whip." I quote his words:
It will mean much hard work and it will be unremunerated but so long as I am your leader it will never remain unthanked.

That was a guiding principle all the time. After that, I had all the work of a Whit, involving many different activities and different parts of the world. It also entailed the relationship between Parliament and the Executive—the Government themselves.
When I look back over my 51 years here, I cannot help but be saddened by the increasing impotence of the House and the decline in the esteem in which this place is held; I am speaking quite frankly. The powers of Parliament to hold the Executive to account have been declining for over a century under Governments of all political persuasions. I can only hope that the Parliament following this one will reassess and reassert its authority, and robustly hold the Executive to account.
I should like to say a word about standards in public life. The behaviour of us Members has also undermined public confidence in parliamentary democracy. As I noted during a debate when I entered the House in 1950, every Member of Parliament was seen as a person of integrity. Unfortunately, some reckless campaigning and an increasingly cynical media excessively focusing on a few examples of unparliamentary behaviour have led to a serious and worrying decline in the public perception of Members of Parliament. I hope that the new intake and existing Members will take note of the need to set an example in those spheres. I also hope that when the conduct of one or two Members falls below the required standards, the media will not try and tar all Members with the same brush.
Perhaps I may finally say a word about Europe. [Interruption.] Do I hear a rumbling? As the subject has already been extensively dealt with this afternoon by my leader, I have no doubts about continuing with it. It is most appropriate that I make the final points of my statement and my final remarks in the House about Europe. I have been a committed European since my Oxford days. My pro-European outlook was reinforced by my wartime experiences. In 1945, as both the victors and the vanquished surveyed the devastation wrought upon the continent, it became obvious that Europe could not afford another war.
Unfortunately, the case for British membership of the European Community was not recognised by British Governments of the 1950s, so this country lost the opportunity to be a founder member of the Community. However, its architects, Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman, correctly recognised that the European Community would not be complete without the United Kingdom.
My proudest achievement was to have successfully negotiated entry of the United Kingdom into the European Community. In January 1972, she fulfilled her destiny. The United Kingdom has always been a European country. We have a shared history and culture. In the modern world it is only right that we should share our sovereignty with our European neighbours, for the greater benefit of all.
In due course, for the second time in a quarter of a century, the British people will be asked to vote on whether the country can remain a committed player in Europe. I look forward to campaigning vigorously for a yes vote. I have no doubt whatever that a united Europe is here to stay. I believe that it is in British interests, and I believe that we should do everything that we can to help it and to help its people. We shall then be helping


ourselves as a people and as a country, and we shall be supporting our own continent. That will be for the good not only of Europe as a whole, but of the world. For those who will follow us in the House, I wish them all well.

Business Statement

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for tomorrow will be: consideration of Lords amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill. Then, if amendments are received from the other place, the House will also consider Lords amendments to the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. That will be followed by the remaining stages of the International Criminal Court Bill [Lords]. The House may also be asked to consider any other Lords amendments that may be received.
On Friday, if amendments are received from the other place, the business will be, consideration of Lords amendments to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill, then the Armed Forces Bill and the Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill. The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
The House will not adjourn until Royal Assent has been received to all Acts. Parliament will be dissolved on Monday 14 May by proclamation.
In addition to the business in Westminster Hall, I remind the House that the Regional Affairs Committee will meet at 1.30 pm tomorrow.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement. Can she confirm that Treasury questions will be taken tomorrow?
I welcome the fact that later today there will be time to debate the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill, a measure that has cross-party support and which is of particular help to people in rural areas, especially those who have suffered from the foot and mouth crisis.
It has been interesting to note which Bills have not been given high enough priority to progress to their final conclusion—reference was made to that during Prime Minister's Question Time. They include the homelessness legislation, the International Development Bill, which has yet to receive any scrutiny in the other place, and the Adoption and Children Bill, which for reasons we all understand is still at the Committee stage as it is complex and requires careful scrutiny. It is important that I put it on the record that, on coming to office, the Conservative party will almost certainly reintroduce the Adoption and Children Bill as a priority for a Conservative Government. Having had a Queen's Speech for this Session as late as December last year, it is regrettable that priority has been given to legislation on foxes rather than that on international development and the homeless.
The Leader of the House announced that in tomorrow's business we shall deal with the Health and Social Care Bill, which will abolish community health councils. CHCs contain people who have served their community well, and have been the champions of patients, holding health authorities and the medical profession to account. At this late stage, I plead with the Government to consider the valuable work that those people have done, and to drop that part of the Bill.

Mrs. Beckett: I confirm that there will be Treasury questions tomorrow, and that we anticipate that we shall
get through the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill. As the hon. Lady rightly said, the Adoption and Children Bill is under discussion in Committee. It deals with a complex and important subject, and the whole House wants it to be dealt with thoroughly.
It is obviously a source of regret that other legislation may not proceed. I am surprised by the hon. Lady's remarks about the International Development Bill, as there was nothing to prevent the Conservative party from allowing it to reach the statute book if it chose to do so.
The issues raised by the Health and Social Care Bill will be discussed, but as I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, the Government believe that we need to put in place stronger arrangements for the representation of patients, which is what the Bill envisages.

Mr. Tony Clarke: Does the Leader of the House share my regret that this is the first Session of Parliament since the 1973–74 Session when no private Members' Bills have succeeded? On her return, will she ensure, while protecting Government business, that private Members' Bills are also protected, especially from individual vandalism and the wrecking techniques of Conservative Members?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. A feature of this Parliament—not just of this Session—is that it has been much more difficult than usual to get private Members' Bills on to the statute book, even those that were widely thought to be non controversial and that were welcomed by all parties. I accept that that is a matter for concern. My hon. Friend will know that the issue is much discussed.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that, should she still be chairing the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, she will look favourably on the suggestion that the way in which we deal with private Members' legislation should be examined as a matter of urgency? I think that all Back Benchers would concur with that.
Does the right hon. Lady share my concern and astonishment that the Conservatives seem to want to blackball the International Development Bill, although it has been subject to much inquiry? Will she please do everything in her power to make them see reason? Does she accept that there is an element of stage-managed brinkmanship at the end of a Parliament, but this time it is extraordinary, given that we have all known for many weeks that this moment was coming?
Does she also accept that it is extraordinary that the Government are anxious to steamroller legislation through the House in this Parliament when presumably they are confident of re-election? On the other side, the Conservatives are desperate to extract the last ounce of compromise when presumably they believe that one day they will be elected to government again. The way in which we have to deal with these matters at the fag-end of a Parliament is extraordinary.

Mrs. Beckett: Few parliamentary ends were more evidence of that than the end of the last Parliament.
Although it ran until the last possible date, at the close of the Session it was necessary for the Government to deal with some 16 pieces of legislation—substantially more than we shall need to deal with this time.
It is, I fear, a feature of our system that it is always necessary to deal with things in this way. I reject the suggestion that we are attempting to steamroller legislation through —we are allowing time for proper consideration—although I share the hon. Gentleman's regret about the stonewalling of the International Development Bill, which I find wholly inexplicable.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: As my right hon. Friend will know, one of the private Members' Bills that have, sadly, been lost is my Christmas Day Trading Bill, which would have protected the interests of low-paid workers and secured their right to remain with their families on one of the most important days in the Christian calendar. May I commend the subject of the Bill to my right hon. Friend, and hope that Her Majesty's Government will look kindly on an important but quite straightforward measure which could be passed fairly quickly by an incoming Government and which would, I am sure, be welcomed by low-paid workers throughout tie United Kingdom?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend knows that I am not in a position to give advance commitments, but I understand the importance of the issue that she has raised and, as always, take her remarks seriously.

Sir Peter Emery: Will the right hon. Lady give me the last assurance that I shall ask of any Minister? Will she assure me that, whatever position she holds in the next Parliament, she will use her experience in the Modernisation Committee—especially in the context of its last report—to try to enable Members on both sides of the House to realise the concept of ensuring that all legislation i fully debated and all Opposition amendments properly considered? That was the intention of the Committee's report; it has not worked, but it requires the co-operation of both sides. Perhaps, in the next Parliament, I shall be able to look from afar and see that it really is working.

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case, which I know he has pursued assiduously for many years. I have no hesitation in giving him, unequivocally, the assurance that he seeks.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: As my right hon. Friend knows, over the past couple of months I have pressed regulary for a debate on matters of standards and privileges. Can she assure us that there will be a debate early in the next Parliament, before any assessment of the case being made by the office of standards for an increase in its resources? May we have a debate first, and then consideration of resources?

Mrs. Beckett: First, may I say that we shall certainly miss my hon. Friend on the Labour Benches?
My hon. Friend says, correctly, that he has pressed me on this matter a number of times. He makes an important point, and I have taken his words on board; but I suspect that, although he will not be here to deal with the issues that he has raised, others will take them up.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: As I made clear earlier today, the Prime Minister has maintained a stream


of correspondence, and has held several meetings, with the Hindujas, which he did not disclose to Sir Anthony Hammond's inquiry. Parliament is the proper place in which to raise these issues. We now need a statement from the Prime Minister to clarify his position on two important points. First, why did the right hon. Gentleman ignore official advice, deepen his personal relations with the Hindujas and extend his Government's business with them, when he knew from January 1998 onwards that they were under investigation by the Indian Government? Secondly, why did he conceal his contacts and his meetings from Sir Anthony Hammond's inquiry?

Mrs. Beckett: None of that will arise in the business that we shall take during the next couple of days, and I think it a sad indication of the Conservative party's desperation that it seeks to raise those issues now.

Mr. David Winnick: On the points made by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), the former Chairman of the Procedure Committee, does my right hon. Friend accept that, if programme motions are here to stay whoever forms the next Government, and I cannot see any change, it is important to try to reach agreement—it may not be possible—with the Opposition, so that we do not sit all through the night, which is not necessary and which the public do not appreciate, and that the Opposition have the opportunity to put their points of view which is the essence of our place of work and of parliamentary democracy? A compromise is possible if both sides wish it.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Indeed, there is growing evidence that people have begun to understand the opportunity and advantage that scheduling debate in that way can offer the Opposition. Let us hope that they will have many more years to make use of it.

Mr. Tom King: The right hon. Lady may be aware that, last weekend, we had the first serious outbreak of foot and mouth in west Somerset and that some 5,000 animals were culled, Which is the clearest possible reminder that the suggestion that the outbreak is under control and over could not be more inaccurate. In that connection, a very serious crisis is emerging not only for agriculture but for tourism in the area. May I plead with the right hon. Lady again to speak to her colleagues in government and to do the one thing that might help: to introduce interest-free loans for some businesses, which otherwise will simply collapse? It will cost the Government much more, if they are serious about tourism, to try to re-create them. May we have a statement from the chairman of the taskforce before Parliament is dissolved?

Mrs. Beckett: All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman, who I know is also leaving this place, is that it is inaccurate to suggest that anyone has said that the foot and mouth outbreak is over. What has clearly been taken on board is the fact that, mercifully, the number of cases is falling, but everyone is very conscious of the fact that it is by no means over. Indeed, both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have said repeatedly that we must expect some fluctuation in the position and perhaps even some increase on occasion in the number of cases.
The right hon. Gentleman makes the point about the assistance and support that should be made available. I cannot promise that there will be a statement in the next few days, but I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the Minister.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Some 43 days ago, I asked two questions of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which have still to receive a substantive answer. As questions are meant to be answered within a few working days, will the right hon. Lady confirm that all proper questions that are in order will be answered before the House rises?

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot confirm that off the cuff, but I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the relevant Department.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Walter Bagehot drew a distinction between the dignified and the efficient parts of the constitution. We have heard this week about the dignified parts: prorogation, the audience with the Queen and such like. What answer does the right hon. Lady have to the heartfelt plea by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) about the decline in the ability of this place to scrutinise the Executive? Is she aware that we are in danger of becoming a dignified part of the constitution? The only effective part will be the audience that the Prime Minister has with the head of the fourth estate, the editor of The Sun.

Mrs. Beckett: I point out to the hon. Gentleman, who I am sure was listening to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), that the right hon. Gentleman claimed that that trend had taken place over the past century, not over the past four years. Some of the changes that the Government have made have improved opportunities for scrutiny, not least the opportunity to scrutinise business from the European Union. There were substantial gaps in the ability of the House to cover that legislation, which have been remedied by the Government. Further opportunities have been provided in Westminster Hall, the establishment of which was opposed by many Conservatives Members. Other reforms are under way, including the reforms long advocated by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), the former Chairman of the Procedure Committee. We believe that those reforms will facilitate improved scrutiny, should hon. Members use them to their full effect.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I echo and reinforce the call by the shadow Leader of the House for the Government to take the ready opportunity and the chance to save face, and not to scrap community health councils. The excellent CHCs of Cheshire Central, and Chester and Ellesmere Port need not be scrapped. There is a continuing sense of outrage about the scrapping of those excellent representative bodies. The Government have a chance to do the right thing. I urge the Leader of the House to encourage her colleagues to take that chance now.

Mrs. Beckett: Those matters have been extensively discussed in our consideration of the Bill, and no doubt they will be again.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the right hon. Lady aware that 1 tabled to the Agriculture Minister a


named-day question on whether he would make a statement on the price of inspection for small and medium-sized abattoirs? The question was due to be answered today, so why have I only been told today that it has been transferred to the Secretary of State for Health. Why has the question not been answered today?

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot tell the hon. Lady that, but I can certainly undertake to draw her concerns to the attention of my relevant colleagues.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: It might be helpful for the right hon. Lady to know that MAFF has told me in an answer that it has not been able to answer within the allotted time 98 per cent. of the questions that it has been asked in the past month. My question, however, is whether she will answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House about whether there will be Treasury questions tomorrow.

Mrs. Beckett: I did answer that, and there will be.

Mr. Graham Brady: Can the Leader of the House explain why No. 10 Downing street was yesterday able to issue a press release announcing that Dissolution will be on Monday, whereas she was clearly unable to answer that question when she was asked it in the Chamber? Why was it possible for that information to be made clear to the press before hon. Members were allowed to have it?

Mrs. Beckett: The press were informed first, but negotiations were continuing when I made my statement yesterday. That is why I was not able to give the House all the information that I gave it today.

Mr. Eric Forth: As it would appear from what the Leader has told us that most of the business in the next two days relates to amendments coming here from another place, and since presumably even the Leader cannot predict with great accuracy how many amendments there may be, may we have an undertaking from her that the Government will make no attempt to reduce, truncate or otherwise limit the time that we have properly to consider amendments from the other place and any other business that may be before us? I think that it would be very helpful, even at this stage of the Parliament, if we were given that reassurance and if the Government were prepared for once properly to be scrutinised and held to account in this place.

Mrs. Beckett: I can certainly assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall follow the precedents that have been followed by every Government at the rise of every Parliament.

Mr. John Bercow: Does the right hon. Lady recognise that the prospect of a number of items of business on Friday will give me an additional glint in my eye and spring in my step as it presumably means, does it not, that Friday's business will close with an Adjournment debate on treatment of diabetes sufferers, which it will be my privilege to introduce?

Mrs. Beckett: I must freely confess that I had not been studying that. However, the hon. Gentleman may well be correct.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the right hon. Lady ensure that, before Dissolution, we have an opportunity to discus s the two impending tube strikes in London and the other rail strikes across the country that have been called by the RMT union? Such a debate would give us an opportunity to discuss the extraordinary fact that not only the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but his deputy, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) are members of that union. Of course the Secretary of State also receives substantial benefits in kind from that union

Mrs. Beckett: I do not see any need for a further opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to make a point that he has already made on a number of occasions.

Mr. Owen Paterson: The reply that the Leader of the House gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgewater (Mr. King) shows that the Government still underestimate the desperate problems caused by foot and mouth to the rural economy. I have been on to the Agriculture Minister's private office for almost a week trying to sort out certain problems with licences, and we need his presence in this Chamber in the next two days to answer questions. We also need the presence of the Minister responsible for the taskforce. Although the Government have made some glossy PR announcements about the sums that are being handed down, people in the tourism industry cannot get hold of that money. They do not know who is distributing it or the criteria for applying for it. Members representing rural areas have only two more days to put those questions to the responsible Ministers. Can she please make a clear statement on why those two Ministers cannot find time in the next two days to come to the House to answer decent questions?

Mrs. Beckett: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that everyone in the Government takes the crisis in the rural economy extremely seriously. Additionally, as he will have observed, substantial sums have been made available, whether it is to agriculture or to tourism, and that will continue. I shall certainly draw the concerns expressed by hon. Members to the attention of my right. hon. and hon. Friends
As the hon. Gentleman will, I believe, be the last contributor, may I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to thank you, and your predecessor, for the way in which you have presided over this mêlée? Indeed, I thank all those who have participated, not least the shadow Leader of the House and her predecessors. As Leader of the House, let me say—on behalf of the whole House, if I may—how deeply indebted we are to all those who facilitate our proceedings: the officers and officials of the House in every capacity.

BILL PRESENTED

HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (REGISTRATION SCHEME) BILL

Mr. Alan Simpson presented a Bill to provide for a scheme for the registration and licensing of houses in multiple occupation; to require certain matters relating to


energy efficiency to be included in such a scheme; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 May, and to be printed [Bill 97].

Age Discrimination

Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in respect of age discrimination.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that in the previous Parliament I also introduced a Bill to outlaw age discrimination. Shortly thereafter I rather hoped that I would not have to raise the matter in the House again, because before the last election the Labour party committed itself to legislate against age discrimination. Unfortunately, Labour went on to win the election, and I assumed in good faith that, as the party had made that commitment, that would form part of its legislative programme. I went on hoping, rather against hope, that there would be some way of pricking the Labour Government's conscience and persuading them to implement their pre-electoral promises.
I was rather heartened on 2 December 1998, when I asked the Prime Minister whether he still stood by his commitment to legislate against age discrimination, and he answered:
Yes, we stand by it."—[Official Report, 2 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 879.]
I continued to wait in expectation, but, I have to say, with decreasing confidence that my expectations and those of millions of people affected by age discrimination would be met. Two weeks ago, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, I again asked the Prime Minister at Question Time about his intentions in that regard, but all I got was the standard new Labour waffle.
It is clear that the Labour Government have no intention whatever of dealing with the matter, and that their promise before the last election has proved to be yet another broken promise. Many Members—and not only Members, but people throughout the country—will be saying, "So what's new? Labour have broken all their other major promises—about tuition fees, tax, class sizes, and a referendum on electoral reform." I would not want electoral reform, but having a referendum was a clear manifesto promise. People will ask, "Why shouldn't they break their promise on age discrimination, too?" In the light of events, that is the only reasonable attitude to take, but it is sad that we have to come to such cynical conclusions about how democracy is conducted in this country, and how the electorate is treated by the new Labour publicity and spin machine. I trust that on 7 June a suitable punishment is in store for those who have treated the British electorate in that fashion.
I, for one, will not forget about this issue—not in this Parliament, and not for as long as it takes—because it is extremely important. There are two aspects, both to the issue and to my Bill, and I shall deal with each in turn in the short time available.
The Bill deals with age discrimination both in the job market and in the provision of public services. In the employment market, the issue is one of justice. That is where I start from: it is a matter of elementary justice, We must all have encountered people in our surgeries who say that they are looking for a job and have sent their CVs round to hundreds of employees, but although they appear to be perfectly well qualified, they keep being told,
"I'm sorry, you're too old." Sometimes those people are in their 50s; sometimes they are even in their 40s—yet they are still being told that they are too old.
This is, first and foremost, a matter of elementary justice—the same issue as arises with race and sex discrimination. Human beings are not being considered on their merits as individuals, but are arbitrarily put into some Procrustean category, and condemned without their case having been considered at all. That is exactly the same issue as we encountered in race and sex discrimination before the House—rightly, in my view, but before I became a Member—legislated against those barbarities.
Age discrimination is an issue of justice and humanity. We want to avoid people being made to feel that simply because they are older, which they can do nothing about, they will not be given a fair chance or, worse, they will face a series of humiliations as they pursue the elementary human right to seek work and a role in society and the community.
The economic aspect of age discrimination will become increasingly important as the years go by. We all know that we face a rise in the dependency ratio, which is the number of people aged over 65—the notional standard retirement age—as a proportion of those aged between 20 and 65. The other member states of the European Union also face that problem, some of them to an even worse degree. The problem is worrying, because the number of people who are purely consumers as a proportion of those who are both producers and consumers will increase. That is problematic for the provision of public services and future consumption levels if people wish to increase their standard of living—as most hope to do when they are working and when they retire.
Any pension system is a claim on the resources of the economy and if the output of the economy declines or does not match the expectations that people had when they took out their pension—whether their pension is provided via taxation, through savings or the accumulation of a portfolio of financial securities—their standard of living will decline and their range of choices in retirement will not be what they hoped.
What can we do about the dependency ratio? We cannot, in a free society, alter the fertility rate through deliberate policies, and even if we could it would take, by definition, a generation or two before the position improved. One answer, which the United States has implemented to some extent, is immigration. Some 750,000 legal immigrants enter the US every year and, including illegal immigrants, the immigration figure is probably more than 1 million. There is a lesser degree of immigration into this country and the rest of the EU, and it is also associated with various social problems and

tensions that may be more difficult to handle in a country such as this, which is physically overcrowded. However, immigration will have a role to play in the future if we are to address the issue of the dependency ratio and ensure that we continue to have a work force who enable the economy to expand. If the supply of labour is limited, economic growth cannot be pursued indefinitely. Capital can substitute for labour to a large extent, but labour is still essential for an economy, especially in labour-intensive service sectors.
Against that background, it is crazy to discard a resource that already exists—members of our community who are already here, already trained and already have experience. Some of those people want to work and have been told that they cannot. When they send in their CVs or ring up in answer to an advertisement, they are told, "Sorry, but we are not taking anybody over 40." Individual employers may feel that they can get away with that, because they can employ reasonable people below that age, but if the generality of the economy works on that basis, it will lose a precious resource.
The second issue addressed in the Bill is discrimination in the provision of public services, especially the national health service. I have spoken about the issue before in health debates. Many Opposition Members have spoken about that. There is much anecdotal evidence that, in practice, many procedures, drugs and operations are being denied to patients in our health service because of their age. I now have documentary evidence of that disgraceful practice. In a letter to me dated 17 April, Mr. Richard Jeavons, the chief executive of Lincolnshire health authority, stated that multiple sclerosis sufferers aged over 50 will not qualify for receiving beta interferon on the national health service That is absolutely disgraceful.
The letter makes it clear that it is a fact, not a matter of anecdotal rumour that age discrimination is being exercised in the NHS. I cannot believe that it is being exercised only against people in Lincolnshire, or only in the matter of beta interferon treatment for people with MS. The practice goes against every principle on which we like to think our society is based. My Bill is therefore more urgently needed than ever, and I trust that the House will give it a Second Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. Tony Baldry, Mr. Christopher Fraser, Mr. Michael Jack, Mr. Robert Jackson, Mr. Robert Key, Mrs. Eleanor Laing, Mrs. Jacqui Lait, Sir David Madel, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Richard Shepherd and Mr. Ian Taylor.

AGE DISCRIMINATION

Mr. Quentin Davies accordingly presented a Bill to make provision in respect of age discrimination: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 May, and to be printed [Bill 981.

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That—

(1) At the sitting on Friday 11th May, notwithstanding the provisions of the Order [23rd January] relating to Business of the House, Government business shall have precedence;
(2) At the sittings on Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, Government business may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour;
(3) At this day's sitting. Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, Standing Order No. 38 shall apply and the Order [7th November 2000] relating to Deferred divisions shall not apply if, after the time for the interruption of business, the opinion of the Speaker as to the decision on a question is challenged in respect of any question;
(4) At this day's sitting, the requirements of paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall be dispensed with in respect of the Motion relating to Estimates 2001–02;
(5) At this day's sitting, any Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill ordered to be brought in and read the first time shall be proceeded with as if its Second Reading stood as an Order of the day, and Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall apply;
(6) At this day's sitting, Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any messages from the Lords shall have been received;
(7) At the sitting on Friday 11th May, the House shall not adjourn until the Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses; and
(8) At its rising on Friday 11th May, the House shall adjourn to Tuesday 15th May.—[Mr. Pope.]

Mr. Eric Forth: I am surprised that no Minister has sought to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to explain this complicated and controversial motion. As has so often been the case, the House must now flounder around and guess the Government's intentions. We have had no guidance from the Government. Sadly, this Parliament will end in the way that it has proceeded—

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The right hon. Gentleman has spoken on business motions through most of the Session. Why is he surprised at today's motion, given that similar motions have been taken formally at this stage of the House's proceedings for the past 30 years?

Mr. Forth: I can imagine that that happened because for most of that time, we had a lousy Opposition who did not do their job properly. In opposition, the right hon. Lady's party clearly neglected its parliamentary duties and let everything go through on the nod. Things have changed.

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman's concern is even more surprising because, in what is known as the wash-up period in the previous Parliament, some 16 pieces of legislation were put on the statute book. One of them was an education Bill, on which the right hon. Gentleman was leading for the then Government.

Mr. Forth: I am delighted to say that I was able to conduct my business easily because there was no

opposition to it. As I said, times have changed. We may have different roles in the next Parliament, and we shall have to see how we get on.

Mr. John Bercow: My right hon. Friend does not normally need defending, but the gravamen of the criticism from the Leader of the House on these occasions always seems to be that he was in the past an unquestioning, compliant, ambitious and possibly even sycophantic Member of Conservative Governments. Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that even if he did commit those sins, everything that he has done in this Parliament has completely made up for his errors of commission in the past?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as ever. However, something of a metamorphosis often takes place among Members of Parliament, depending on whether they are in opposition or in government. I say in the most kindly way to the Leader of the House that the same might even be said to have happened to her.
Whether or not we are in what the Leader of the House quaintly called a wash-up period, we are doing parliamentary business and we are legislating. It seems to have become fashionable, certainly on the Government Benches and, regrettably, among some of my colleagues as well, that legislation is a matter of formality. The idea is that we all operate, if possible, in a horrible consensual way, agree on what is generally good, but do not get around to good old-fashioned scrutiny or good old-fashioned opposition.
I may be a lone voice in this matter, but as long as I am a Member of this House—which I will be until Monday—I will stick to the old-fashioned view that almost everything done by any Government should be viewed with the greatest suspicion, and that the job of the Opposition is to scrutinise, delay, harry and make a nuisance of themselves until they are satisfied that they have done everything they can to make legislation what it should be for the people of this country. It is a simple and unsophisticated view, but then, that is the sort of chap I am.
I approach this motion in the same spirit of simple, unsophisticated criticism. First, however, I should like to welcome an aspect of the motion. Now there is a turn-up for the books, and I hope that it will make the right hon. Lady's day. Paragraph (2) of the motion says:
At the sittings on Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, Government business may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour".
That is a faint echo of the way things used to be. We are being given a proper opportunity for proper parliamentary scrutiny of Government business. I guarantee to the right hon. Lady that it will be opposed—at least, I hope that I can guarantee it. That is, after all, what we are here for. However, I find it encouraging that the business can be conducted until any hour. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front and Back Benches will welcome the measure and take every opportunity that it presents.
That is my word of welcome to the Government and the Leader of the House for uncharacteristically generously allowing a proper amount of time for our proceedings. In a way, it answers the question that I put to the right hon. Lady a short while ago. Given the structure and flow of business that we anticipate over the next two
parliamentary days, and given that, as the right hon. Lady has indicated, we expect a number of amendments to come to us from another place but do not yet know the number, range and quality of those amendments, the motion, very wisely, allows us a proper amount of time in which to consider them. That is good news. However, it is probably the only good news that I can find in the motion.
Paragraph (4) of the motion says:
the requirements of paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall be dispensed with".
I am always suspicious when I see such a provision. How do the Government expect us to react to it? When any Standing Order is dispensed with, we are entitled to be anxious. The point of Standing Orders is to provide the House with a structured way of proceeding with its business and to reassure all Members that their interests will be protected. Again, it is a matter of regret that no Minister—neither the Leader of the House nor anyone else—has sought to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to explain why this rather casual dispensation with key elements of Standing Orders is being put before us, to which we are presumably expected to give our uncritical and admiring approval. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), the shadow Leader of the House, will have something to say about that.
Paragraph (5) says:
At this day's sitting, any Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill ordered to be brought in and read the first time"—
any such Bill, regardless of its contents, size, scale or substance—
shall be proceeded with as if its Second Reading stood as an Order of the day".
That sounds very like our old friend "deemed", under a slightly different guise. The motion does not actually say "deemed" because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, that can be a bit of a red rag to some of us bulls—

Mrs. Angela Browning: And heifers.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend want that remark on the record?

Mrs. Browning: indicated dissent.

Mr. Forth: She does not, but it will be now, I am afraid, because she will get a note from Hansard any minute.
The motion may not say "deemed", but I read it as being rather similar.
I want to clarify several points. First, am I to take that paragraph literally as it reads —that any Bill shall be brought in and read the First time and proceeded with as though we had had the Second Reading anyway? So now we are doing away with Second Readings. I thought that the Government had gone far enough already—they have done away with nearly everything else in the House. This must be the ultimate—the ultimate put-on, the ultimate sin, the ultimate act of arrogance. We shall not even have

Second Readings any more. We shall simply accept legislation, give it a quick nod through, and bob's your uncle.
I suspect, if I know anything, and if I know the Government at all, that this could involve quite a large sum of money. In fact, if we turn the page, we can see that it probably does involve a large sum of money, not unadjacent to—it could not be £144 billion, could it, by any chance? We could not be being asked, could we, Mr. Speaker, to nod through £144 billion and loose change without even a Second Reading?
I hope that the Treasury Ministers who are sitting in the Chamber looking very pleased with themselves at the moment will do the House the courtesy of seeking to catch your eye at some stage, Mr. Speaker, and explain why 144 billion quid of taxpayers' money should be nodded through without even a Second Reading.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Is my right hon. Friend aware of any precedents—apart from the deeming, which we debated at great length and with great consternation in this place? Are there precedents for dispensing with Second Readings, and if so, does my right hon. Friend believe that the judiciary might find that of some note when considering the interpretation of statute in due course?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that very interesting and useful point. I hope that the motion does not create or provide a precedent, because I could just imagine that in some future Parliament, were there to be another Labour Government of this kind, they might well seek to introduce measure such as this and then quote this precedent and say, "But it was done before, and that was okay."
Is not the sole point of a motion like this—which, I am glad to say, can be debated until any hour, which is very reassuring to me, at least—to bring out matters such as this and at least to place on the record the fact that some Members of Parliament are unhappy about this; that some Members of Parliament do care, even at this stage of this Session of this Parliament; and that nodding through £144 billion is not our idea of parliamentary scrutiny? There is something for my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench to think about. Perhaps they do not think that £144 billion is very much, but I do, so it is another question that we must answer for ourselves.
Paragraph (6) of the motion says—I suppose that I should give this a slightly qualified welcome because it involves you, Mr. Speaker—
At this day's sitting, Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, the Speaker shall not adjourn, the House until any messages from the Lords shall have been received:
so, quite properly, we are making provision for the House to be available properly to consider or to receive messages from another place.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Has my right hon. Friend given any consideration to what will happen if no such messages are received? Will we stay here, presumably for ever?

Mr. Forth: That is a glorious thought, and one that I would very much welcome—whether the electorate would


welcome it, I do not know—but I do not read the motion in that way. I can see what my hon. Friend is getting at, but the motion says: 
until any messages … shall have been received;
so, in the quaint but correct old grammar that we delight in here—I am pleased to say that we do—it is making proper provision for, but not necessarily tying us into, the receipt of such messages.
The point is that, in paragraph (6), we are celebrating the fact that we have two Houses of Parliament, both of which have an important role to play, and that even in this wash-up—to use the quaint phrase of the Leader of House, which seems to be her attempt to say, "All this is very trivial and does not matter too much, so why are we bothering with it?"—both Houses of Parliament have a role to play, so we, properly, will be here, waiting to hear what those in the other place may say. I hope that they have a lot to say about some of the rather ghastly Bills that will be put through Parliament before Dissolution.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend's interpretation of paragraph (6) might be unreasonably narrow. Given that the motion does not refer to a time limit—certainly not in relation to the receipt of Lords messages—will he reconsider and accept the possibility that our hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is correct?

Mr. Forth: Our hon. Friend may be correct, but the combination of paragraph (2)—which I welcome, as it states that Government business on 10 and 11 May can be proceeded with until any hour—and paragraph (6) offers some interesting possibilities. However, all this will, of course, depend on what Members of the other place decide to do to the pretty revolting Bills that are still washing about in the parliamentary system. I should also like to think that we could somehow prevent them from reaching the statute book. I should also like to think that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will resist them stoutly, but I have been a Member long enough not to be too optimistic about that.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I seek clarification from my right hon. Friend? The phrase,
any messages from the Lords shall have been received
is used in paragraph (6). Does he assume that the word "received" includes the term "considered", because I believe that both those words are important? Will he consider that point?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, as the very respected, influential and extremely senior Chairman of the Procedure Committee, knows about such things better than almost anyone else. I had not thought of the point that he makes, but I wish to consider it immediately.
My hon. Friend raises the intriguing possibility that we could not adjourn on 10 May until we had received a message, which we would then consider on 11 May, but what about those messages received on 11 May? Presumably, we should have to continue to sit while what we in the trade rather quaintly know as ping-pong takes place between the House and another place and until either everyone gets tired and goes away, which I hope will be the case, or the ghastly Bills involved receive

Royal Assent and finally come to rest on the statute book, which I hope will not be the case. One way or another, the motion offers some intriguing possibilities about what could happen during the open-ended, unlimited parliamentary days on 10 and 11 May.
Of course, as my hon. Friend knows better than most, another peculiarity is that if the parliamentary day of 10 May were to continue until 9.30 the following morning. 11 May would not exist. So the intriguing possibility that arises, even as I speak, is that, as I understand our procedures, we may find ourselves with a lot of business on 10 May because another place had happily sought to amend those ghastly Bills considerably. If the Government wanted to resist that process and if, even with closure motions, we considered the business through the night on 10 May and past 9.30 the following morning, 11 May could not exist as a parliamentary day. That, in turn, raises some very intriguing possibilities, if we were to approve the motion. If the Government have committed themselves to Dissolution on Monday 14 May, we may well face the possibility of the Bills that they think they will obtain not being passed.

Mr. David Wilshire: I find my right hon. Friend's train of thought extremely helpful. Will he extend it a little further? If the House were to continue sitting, not only might we lose the 11th, but we might also lose the 12th, the 13th and the 14th. Does he consider that, if the 14th did not exist because we were still sitting, it would be possible to dissolve Parliament on a day that did not exist?

Mr. Forth: The Government are in trouble; the more we examine this possibility, the more matters spin delightfully out of control. I suspect that the people of Bromley and Chislehurst want the coming election like a hole in the head. I suspect that that is mainly because they are entirely satisfied with their existing representation in the House. However, were the election not to take place because of Government cock-ups, and it looks as though we are entering that territory—

Mr. Winterton: Wash-ups!

Mr. Forth: Wash-ups or cock-ups, I can tell my hon. Friend that no tears will be shed in Bromley and Chislehurst.

Mr. Edward Leigh: May I take issue with my right hon. Friend? Is not what he says nonsense on stilts? The stilts are that he bases all his arguments on his belief that the Government will live and abide by traditional parliamentary practices, while the truth is that they will simply crush the Opposition, if necessary with guillotines, and will ensure that we depart when they want us to do so.

Mr. Forth: I have never regarded my hon. Friend as crushable. He certainly does not look crushable to me. As long as some of my right hon. and hon. Friends are in this place, representing their constituents and taking their parliamentary duties seriously, crushing will not come into the question. Certainly, we are finding that, as we probe this ill-thought-out motion, it is defective and has not properly considered the possibilities that lie before us. I now realise, having reached this part of my analysis,
why Ministers did not try to introduce the motion in the normal way: either they were ashamed of it, or they realised that it was defective or, as is more likely—although I freely admit that that would be uncharacteristic of the Leader of the House—they did not want to submit themselves to parliamentary scrutiny. I exonerate the Leader of the House entirely from that accusation because she is fearless and would be more than prepared to face any criticism.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The exchanges between my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) follow the train of thought that I was pondering while trying to interpret the rather difficult wording of the motion. Does it seem to my right hon. Friend that the drafting may have been in error? The rather arrogant assumption has been made that we are so used to programme motions and unused to holding debates until any hour that this technique has been used—completely forgetting that the parliamentary day may not be a calendar day, thus giving rise to potential confusion and great constitutional dilemma.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Although he has not been a Member of the House for as long as many—indeed most—his mastery of the intricacies of parliamentary procedure is most impressive. I congratulate him on that. The only fly in all that ointment is my tiny inkling of doubt as to how far my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are determined to run the Government ragged during the next two parliamentary days.

Mrs. Browning: I am hurt to the quick that my right hon. Friend should even suggest that there is any question that the official Opposition will not run the Government ragged whenever they get the chance. He knows that the allegation is most unjust. I must ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. Forth: I do not want to be drawn too deeply into that analysis. Perhaps my hon. Friend and I can talk about it in the Tea Room—much later, when this debate has matured. We are only making our opening shots at present; indeed, so far I am the only speaker. As the debate is blessed—unusually—by being tabled for "any hour", I can say with some confidence that my hon. Friend's visit to the Tea Room with me will be delayed for a while longer.

Mr. Bercow: I am now immensely perturbed by my right hon. Friend's comments—

Mr. Winterton: Too mellifluous?

Mr. Bercow: I do not think that they have been mellifluous. In fact, I find rather alarming the suggestion that if we lose Friday 11 May as a parliamentary day, paragraph (8) of the motion—with each word of which the Leader of the House will be familiar—will immediately fall and it will not, therefore, be possible to reconvene the House on 14 May. Would it not be rather unfortunate if my surmise were correct, given that, if we could return on 14 May to engage in the extremely important debates that remain to be had, those debates

could potentially be led by the Prime Minister, which would be most welcome because he would be present in the House and not hectoring and intimidating innocent south London schoolchildren?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is not prone to flights of fancy, but the suggestion that the Prime Minister would appear in the House is one of them and I do not take his comment seriously as result.
However, the worrying possibility arises that Her Majesty the Queen might be kept waiting in Buckingham Palace, without knowing what is to happen. I do not know whether Her Majesty has been told by the Government or by the Prime Minister during his extremely brief visit yesterday what he thinks will happen, but I hope that she has been warned that, as a result of the defective nature of the motion, she might be kept waiting longer than she anticipated to give Royal Assent, if any of the ghastly Bills proceeds in that direction, as I hope none will.
Having explored the questions raised by paragraph (6), let us move on swiftly to paragraph (7), which rests on the assumption that there will be a sitting on Friday 11 May—a large question mark hangs over that one now, I grant. In the statement:
the House shall not adjourn until the Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses",
a rather large number of assumptions are implicit. The motion acknowledges, and we should remember, that both Houses are fully involved in the process. As for the reporting of Royal Assent, I assume that everyone—all 659 of us—will be present on that day, waiting for the Speaker to tell us whether or not Royal Assent has been granted. We should be in dereliction of our parliamentary duty were we not here, so I expect to see a full House on Friday 11 May, especially on the Government side—after all, a Government motion has said that the House shall be here, and it might even be thought disrespectful to Mr. Speaker if we were not here in our numbers to hear him report the Royal Assent to the Government's own Bills. I am not sure that the Opposition need to be here—I certainly do not want to hear that those ghastly Bills have received Royal I Assent. However, I am sure that Government Members will want to be present, enthusiastic, keen, eager and joyous to hear that the Bills have finally got Royal Assent.
Leaving that question to one side, because it is not for me to delve too deeply into the extent to which Government Members welcome their Government's measures, we come to the most puzzling aspect of all. My question is largely technical in nature, but worth asking none the less. Paragraph (8) states
At its rising on Friday 11th May"—
a day that is now in doubt—
the House shall adjourn to Tuesday 15th May.
However, I distinctly heard the Leader of the House say earlier that Parliament would be dissolved on Monday 14 May. It might be another typographical error or an error of drafting—although I find that difficult to believe given the expertise of the Clerk and his colleagues—a cock-up or a piece of deception, self-deception or otherwise, but the question arises in my mind of how the House can adjourn to Tuesday 15 May when, as we have


already been told, it is to be dissolved on Monday 14 May. That strikes me as some form of parliamentary oddity of which some explanation is required.

Mr. Winterton: I seek clarification on paragraph (2), which states:
At the sittings on Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, Government business may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour".
It does not specify what Government business. Hon. Members could have their own ideas about that. For example, we might want to include the borough of Macclesfield in the business rate relief scheme that has arisen from the foot and mouth outbreak. The constituency of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), which is covered by the scheme, is hardly agricultural and rural, whereas 90 per cent. of the geographical area of Macclesfield is Does my right hon. Friend believe that paragraph (2) allows such issues to be considered for debate?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has been here since the beginning of the debate and it has taken him nearly half an hour to mention Macclesfield and its interests, which he has looked after for 30 years. That must be something of a record. Although I welcome paragraph (2), I appreciate his intervention because the extent to which Government business might include items other than those mentioned by the Leader of the House needs clarification. She verified that there will be Treasury questions tomorrow and gave a list of the business to be dealt with. It remains to be seen whether it is an exhaustive list, although it certainly sounds as though it might be exhausting. The key consideration is that we could have another business statement tomorrow to change or add to business on Friday 11 May, were that to exist as a parliamentary day.
Although it is not for me to answer my hon. Friend—this is, after all, a Government motion—I shall do my best because I am the only person who has shown any interest in the debate, which I am also trying; to initiate. I believe that Macclesfield could find its way on to the Order Paper on Friday as part of a Government business motion. He has got from now until the rising of the House to persuade the Government to do that. That is the best advice—as if he needed it—that I can give.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way a third time, especially as I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who also represents the good county of Cheshire. I note that as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) was fortuitously sitting behind the Treasury Minister, he was able to be briefed. With so many Ministers present on the Front Bench, we may well get an answer to my hon. Friend's query through the combination of our interventions.
I want to drag my right hon. Friend—possibly kicking and screaming—back to paragraph (7). On Royal Assent, the Government's plan to scrap community health councils is close to my heart and those of my constituents. Cheshire has excellent examples of community health councils. The other place has also shown grave concern on patients' behalf about the proposals to scrap those august institutions. They are worried about how they will operate. Does my right hon. Friend think that we will have

an opportunity to understand the timetabling, in parliamentary day terms, and how the ping-pong will work? In the absence of any response from the Government, I have to seek answers from my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Forth: I shall do my best to oblige my hon. Friend. It is like the old days—I used to answer questions regularly at the Dispatch Box. It is with a sense of nostalgia that I find myself doing it today. I shall try to get myself back into that mood.
The Health and Social Care Bill, which covers community health councils, was mentioned by the Leader of the House as part of tomorrow's business. That much we do know. So an opportunity—I suspect that it might be limited—will arise to deal with such matters. As Cheshire is so generously and magnificently represented today, I assume that the same will apply tomorrow and that it will be possible for hon. Members to raise such issues. Whether the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) will be in critical or obsequious mode tomorrow remains to be seen. Only time will tell. I have been dragged back reluctantly to considering paragraph (2)—I welcomed it earlier—but its wording suggests that the issue that my hon. Friend has mentioned will be covered because the Bill is Government business. We will certainly oppose the aspect of the Bill that he mentioned, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton assured us that we shall oppose vigorously almost everything in sight. That is very welcome news, so I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) has grounds for optimism.

Mr. Swayne: rose—

Mr. Forth: I am trying to conclude my remarks, but I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Swayne: My right hon. Friend will acknowledge that he rather skated over the provisions in paragraph (3). Having decoded the paragraph, my understanding is that it will allow us to have proper Divisions and that there will be no deferred Divisions. I hope that he will have a few words of welcome for that even though it clearly suggests that we might have to decide on any number of Government orders.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is quite right. In my anxiety to skip quickly through the motion and to give ample time for other hon. Members to speak, I probably did not do justice to paragraph (3). Like him I had some difficulty decoding it, but if it means that these ghastly, irrelevant nonsenses of deferred Divisions are to be put aside, I will very much welcome the provision. I do not take part in deferred Divisions as a point of high principle. They are an insult, an irrelevance and nonsense—I do not do them. I strongly recommend that approach to all my right hon. and hon. Friends. If we are given an opportunity to vote properly on matters that would normally be deferred, that will be a welcome step. Subject to clarification from Ministers—as opposed to me answering all the questions—we could give a rather generous welcome to paragraph (3).

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Forth: I shall give way, but probably for the last time. I shall try to conclude my remarks to allow my
hon. Friends to seek to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I sense that there is a real enthusiasm for this debate, and I very much welcome that.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. His generosity of spirit invariably gets the better of him as the House is always aware. He will agree that our hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) has performed a signal service.

Mr. Forth: As ever.

Mr. Bercow: As ever, as my right hon. Friend poignantly observes. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West has performed a signal service in drawing attention to the tortuous wording of paragraph (3). Has my right hon. Friend noticed that that tortuous construction refers to a scenario in which the opinion of the Speaker is challenged? Surely such a scenario is positively unimaginable.

Mr. Forth: I certainly take my hon. Friend's advice on that—he should know. I must admit that I thought that I would skip over that part of the motion because it raises certain sensitivities. We would probably be better to draw a veil over them and leave the Government to explain why they admit of the possibility of the Speaker being challenged. That is not a matter for my hon. Friend or myself; it is certainly a matter for the Government. I bet that someone will find himself on the carpet when the Speaker is apprised of the words in paragraph (3). We had better leave it as a matter for the Speaker and Government.

Mr. Winterton: Order—[Laughter.] I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am used to listening intently from a different position.
My right hon. Friend is a highly respected Member of the House and the utterances of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) are always fascinating and flowery, but the wording of paragraph (3) is entirely appropriate. When, at the end of the debate, the Speaker decides that the ayes have it, Members on the other side can say "No" and that means that there is a Division. I hope that my right hon. Friend will concede that the Division is the appropriate means by which the House should operate. I am seeking to be helpful.

Mr. Forth: If I can find one other Member to be a Teller, I can virtually guarantee that that will happen.
I am surprised that my hon. Friend thought that he was in Westminster Hall, over which he presides with such distinction, because I have never set foot in the ghastly place and never intend to; I would not darken its doors. I regard it as an excrescence and irrelevance, and the sooner that we do away with it, the better. However, I do not want to digress.
I see that I am reaching the limit of your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker; I do not want to exhaust the patience of the House. I thought that I would skip lightly through some of the salient elements of the motion, and hope that I have interested the House and my hon. Friends enough for them to think that it is worth them asking

questions. Following my few words, I hope that Ministers will tell us something about those matters, as we have winkled out of the motion a few relevant, important and disturbing facts that require clarification.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Our debate has a serious kernel, and we are trying to deal with it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) should not get too excited about returning to the tradition of having a debate until any hour. I suspect that if our debate ran on, and even if perfectly serious points were made, the Government would move a closure motion at about 7.17 pm, three hours after we started at 4.17 pm.
The Government are ruthless about getting their own way and would not allow a situation to develop in which the House of Commons could perform its traditional function at any length. Looking down the Order Paper, I see that the Finance Bill programme motion may continue for up to 45 minutes, as may the programme motion for the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill. The Government always ensure that, whatever happens and whatever the Opposition say, we are sent home at the witching hour of 10 o'clock, as it is not considered right for us to be here trying to scrutinise the Government after that time.
That is my first point. My second is the wider issue of how we are to proceed in the coming days. It is true that the business this Session has been an exceptionally light. It is also true that everybody has known the date of the general election for some time; there has been no mystery about it. Everybody knows that the Government would have liked to hold the election in May, but that was not possible because of the foot and mouth outbreak, so it was delayed.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the motion that we are discussing is the business of the House, not the date of the general election.

Mr. Leigh: I appreciate that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am asking why, when everybody knows when Parliament is to be dissolved, it is not possible for more time to be allowed. After all, these are serious motions and Bills. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the House was given so little warning, and an impossible burden put on the Opposition. Most of the Bills that we will discuss in the next few days are popular and perfectly sensible, and the Opposition do not want to oppose them on principle—[Interruption] Well, some, but not all, of them.

Mrs. Beckett: Before the hon. Gentleman gets any deeper into the hole that he is digging for himself, I remind him that in the Session of 1982 to 1983, Parliament dealt with 10 Bills; in 1986 to 1987, it dealt with 14; in 1991 to 1992, it dealt with 11; in 1996 to 1997, it dealt with 16 I simply say to him that, contrary to the pointless remarks made by him and his right hon. and hon. Friends, the more that Opposition Members go on, the more apparent they make it that they expect never to be in government again; I sincerely hope that they are right.

Mr. Leigh: All that the right hon. Lady is saying is that we have not conducted our affairs very well in


the past; we sandwiched an enormous amount of consideration into a short period, which, presumably, did not result in the right sort of scrutiny, so we should carry on as before. I am sure that when our business was conducted as it was previously and the right hon. Lady was sitting on the Opposition Benches, she also objected and felt that her point of view was not taken sufficiently into account, because she was in a minority. Why do we not take legislation seriously? Why do we not have a procedure that ensures that Bills undergo proper consideration?

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. With the greatest respect to the Leader of the House—she knows that I respect her—I could not give a tinker's cuss about what happened in 1983, because at the time I was busily preoccupied with my university studies. Although we are not here to debate the date of the general election—as you poignantly reminded us, Madam Deputy Speaker—the fact that the Government propose to hold the election 327 days before it needs to be called is relevant to our consideration of the motion. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government want to cut and run, there is no reason why we should be accommodating in our attitude? Rather, to adapt the words of our noble Friend Lord Tebbit of Chingford, we should invite Ministers to get on their bicycles and pedal them.

Mr. Leigh: The Government chose to prorogue Parliament earlier than they needed to. We on the Opposition Benches are perfectly entitled to insist that the remaining Bills are not rushed through and that there is proper scrutiny. I am sure that if the right hon. Lady were on these Benches, she would say exactly the same. Contrary to what she said, we have heard much from the Government about the need to modernise our procedures. Only today we heard from various quarters about the declining ability of the House to scrutinise the Executive. Why are we still dealing with our affairs in the same way as we did a few years ago, and not giving proper—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I once again remind the hon. Gentleman of the motion that we are discussing and how limited it is?

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. John Hayes: Discussion of the motion is not simply a matter of the esteem in which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) may hold the Leader of the House or the Government. It is also a matter of the impression created by the motion outside the House and the pressures that it exerts on Parliament. People who are intimately associated with the measures that we are to debate over the next few days will not understand why the House is giving scant consideration to matters that they believe, with some justification, are of paramount importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) should not be intimidated by the right hon. Lady quoting historical facts and figures, which go way beyond the experience of the vast majority of hon. Members in the Chamber. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to fight the cause of his constituents in Gainsborough, mine in South Holland and The Deepings, and the wider public.

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments.
My second point relates to the extinguishment of private Members' rights. Government business will take precedence over that of private Members. It is regrettable—I see my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst in his place—that it has proved impossible for private Members to enact their Bills during this Parliament. There is no point in Government Members complaining about Opposition Members who have sought to scrutinise such Bills; that is our right. My right hon. Friend is right to come here Friday after Friday, hold private Members to account and subject their Bills to scrutiny.
Despite the fact that everybody knew when Parliament was to be prorogued—presumably the Government have known that for weeks—the Government have produced a business motion that will prevent any private Members' Bills from making progress. Some excellent private Members' Bills have been presented, such as the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), but the Government are entirely ruthless and kill off all such Bills.
With all the notice that we have had, and with everyone knowing for weeks, if not months, when the general election would be held, would it not have been possible for the Government to introduce a business motion that ensured that the rights of private Members were not extinguished? Is that fair? Is that right? Is that the proper way for Parliament to proceed?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. Is he aware that the vast majority of private Members' Bills are killed off by the Government Whip objecting to them? The Christmas Day (Trading) Bill, which would have been on the Order Paper for this Friday, is not supported and may even be opposed by the Government. That may explain what is going on.

Mr. Leigh: Yes. Regrettably, we often conduct our affairs with a lack of honesty. The Government cried crocodile tears and said to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, "We're terribly sorry. It's an excellent and worthwhile Bill, but there wasn't time." Presumably the Government are delighted that it will be killed off—perhaps they have friends in big business who dropped them a word. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich should have been allowed to proceed with her Bill, which had broad support in the House. How could anyone want people to work on Christmas day? The Government are not being honest. Surely, with their majority, their authority and their ability to plan—they make the rules and control this place—they could have ensured that one of their own distinguished Members was given a chance to bring her private Member's Bill to a conclusion. Why this ruthless haste? Why has no consideration been given to the rights of private Members?
I hope that when we next consider these matters—perhaps in the Modernisation Committee—it will not be beyond the wit of Parliament to devise a means that allows us to plan a little, work out how many Bills need to go through and ensure that there is not the unseemly rush that we have had this time and, I accept, on previous occasions. We should ensure proper consideration of legislation right up to the end of the Parliament. Why else are we timetabling Bills? Why else is the Leader of the House telling us that the conduct of affairs in the past has not been adequate?
It is true that Oppositions have used the weapon of time, but that is the only weapon available to us. Should we be criticised for that? Should a small minority be criticised for trying to hold the Government to account by using the weapon of time? Did not the Labour party do precisely that? The right hon. Lady said that times have changed.

Mrs. Beckett: I want to correct the error that the hon. Gentleman is making. I do not criticise the Opposition for using time to discuss issues before the House. I would not do that, as that is their role. I criticise them for wasting time talking about how much time they are going to take.

Mr. Leigh: That was a patronising remark from the Leader of the House, wielding as she does enormous authority over our affairs. This is crucial—it is not a little, quibbling, debating point. It is vital in a democracy that the Government decide on the business and on what gets passed, whereas the Opposition decide what gets debated. That is our right, and it is how Oppositions hold Governments to account.
I accept the right hon. Lady's point that this is how we have always dealt with these matters in the past, but if she wants to go down in history as a modernising Leader of the House and to sweep away the nonsense of Oppositions filibustering and time wasting, and if she wants serious debate on the issues so that every amendment is reached, every part of every Bill is scrutinised and we provide our constituents with a proper service, she should introduce some worthwhile reform if she remains in her office.

Mrs. Browning: I gently remind my hon. Friend that, after 7 June when we have a Conservative Government, there will be no such thing as a Modernisation Committee.

Mr. Leigh: If the Conservative party is returned, as I sincerely hope it will be, it is vital that it reforms our procedures in the first six months. All Oppositions have good intentions—the Leader of the House had good intentions—but once that window of opportunity passes and a party has been in power for a few months, those good intentions about holding the Executive to account fall to pieces. How much progress have we made on reforming Select Committees and giving them real power? How much progress have we made on the matters that I have been discussing? Very little.

Mr. Edward Davey: If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues reduced the amount of verbosity, we might have a chance later to debate motion 8 on estimates, which gives the Government permission to spend £149 billion. That is the sort of motion that the House should be debating, rather than spending too long discussing what is, as the Leader of the House has pointed out, a traditional motion.

Mr. Leigh: That is an example of what Oppositions are told. We are told that it is all our fault that the House cannot debate—in this instance—motion 8, which involves a huge amount of money, because certain Members have done what they are paid to do, and held

the Government to account. But it is the Government who have stated on the Order Paper next to motion 8 that there will be no debate after 10 pm—no debate on a motion involving £149 billion. Does it not sum up the current Parliament that, if people do their job properly, it is perfectly possible for there to be no debate on the spending of £149 billion?

Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend's erudition is matched only by his conscientious representation of the people of Gainsborough.
Will my hon. Friend consider for a moment the deep irony contained in the intervention of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey)? He says that we should have more time in which to debate a matter that appears later on the Order Paper, yet makes no complaint about the way in which the current Parliament is being ended—about the fact that we are not being given more time over the next few days, perhaps weeks, to debate all these matters at greater length. If we were given more time, could we not engage in a fuller debate on both this motion and the matters that the hon. Gentleman seems so keen to discuss?

Mr. Leigh: It is indeed ironic that a member of an Opposition party, and many of his colleagues, should take every opportunity not to do their duty, hold the Government to account and attack them in connection with this or any other motion, but to attack the official Opposition, as though we were responsible—as though it were all our fault, and we had drafted the Order Paper in this way. We had no control over the Order Paper: no one consulted us. The business is simply being rammed through Parliament.

Mr. Davey: I was making a deeper point about the way in which we conduct our business. Under successive Governments of both blue and red persuasions, we have not debated public finance properly. We need to hold the Government to account, and the recommendations of the hon. Gentleman's party to the Norton Commission do not do that. That is why we should change the priorities of the House, so that we can scrutinise the way in which taxpayers' money is spent.

Mr. Leigh: That is a serious point, which I am happy to take on board. I agree that the reason why we have this Parliament at all—the reason why we are here, and the reason why our authority has grown so much since the 17th century—is that the general public placed confidence in us, and our ability to scrutinise the Executive in regard to the spending of public money. It is extraordinary that this evening we shall spend so little time—conceivably, no time at all—performing our primary function, and holding the Government to account on motion 8, entitled "Estimates, 2001–02".
I do not know whether hon. Members saw Simon Schama's programme about the civil war on BBC television last night. That was the origin of our House—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I please remind the hon. Gentleman once more of the narrowness of this debate?

Mr. Leigh: It is indeed a narrow debate, but despite its narrowness it reveals enormously deep and important



issues that the House ignores at its peril if it is to continue to perform its primary function of holding the Government to account. That is what we have sought to do over the past four years; I am simply trying to protect the Labour party's position over the next four years, when Labour Members will be sitting on this side of the House.

Mr. David Wilshire: Let me begin by commenting on the two interventions from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). In his second intervention he said that the House does not scrutinise expenditure properly: I agree with him, and will deal with his point shortly.
The hon. Gentleman's first intervention, however, provides a useful starting point for consideration of the issues arising from the narrow motion that we are discussing. He said that, if the official Opposition were to spend less time scrutinising what the Labour Government were trying to do with democracy in this House, it would be possible to reach item 8 sooner, but that is not correct. If my arithmetic is any good, it will not be possible, whatever happens this afternoon, to get to item 8 before 10 o'clock. That tells us a great deal about the contempt in which the Labour Government hold democracy and the way in which the House exercises it.
If there had been no personal statement and no ten-minute Bill, we would have started with the statement for tomorrow's business and moved to this motion. Even if the motion had gone through on the nod, as the Leader of the House seemed to want, we would still have faced two programme motions of three quarters of an hour each: a total of an hour and a half. We would then have had a guillotined debate lasting three hours and another guillotined debate lasting two hours, which amounts to six and a half hours. If we had started on all that at half-past 3 and not had any of the debate that we have had this afternoon, and if there had been no Divisions—presumably, the Labour Government do not believe that we have a right to vote on anything any more; it is rather inconvenient for their view of democracy—it would have been 10 o'clock before we reached item 8. If we look at the programme motion, the Order Paper and the Standing Orders, we discover that we cannot debate any estimate matter after 10 o'clock, so the reality is not as the hon. Gentleman believed it to be.
When the Government argue that if we had not debated this motion we could have reached the estimates debate, they are talking rubbish. We would not have got on to the debate on the estimates. We would have again been required to act as a rubber-stamp for a Labour dictatorship who have no regard for the House.

Mr. Hayes: The point that I was trying to make in an earlier intervention, which I hope my hon. Friend will take on board, is that if all the business had not been crammed into today and we had continued to sit into next week, which would have been entirely possible, full debates on the matters that he has mentioned would have been possible, and perhaps a debate on the estimates as well, as requested by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey).

Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He makes his point for himself and I can do no more than agree.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) again demonstrated what a generous and kind man he is. He estimated that the Government might decide to move a closure motion after three hours. My hon. Friend's generosity disguises a truth about the Labour Government: I cannot remember one occasion when they have allowed a debate to go on for three hours when they could bring it to a halt in half an hour, one hour, one and a half hours or two hours. My hon. Friend might be proved right, but I suspect that he will not be. His generosity leads him to be kind to the Government; perhaps I am not usually so charitable.
During my hon. Friend's speech, there was an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, I believe it is.

Mr. Bercow: And Honiton.

Mr. Wilshire: And Honiton. Long may she remain the hon. Member for both places. Her intervention has made this entire debate worth while. She pledged from the Front Bench that, on 8 June, we shall get rid of what the Labour party euphemistically calls the Modernisation Committee, which I believe to be the stifling of democracy Committee.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I again remind hon. Members just how narrow this debate is?

Mr. Wilshire: I understand the point that you make, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In two interventions on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, the Leader of the House made two very interesting points that are pertinent to the motion, the first of which was made after a large number of files were brought into the Chamber. That timing suggests not only that the Leader of the House was not willing to speak to the motion at the beginning of the debate and was simply hoping that it would be passed on the nod, but that she was ill-prepared to speak to it. It was only after the files arrived that we were given statistics that we could use to compare the Government's objective of ramming through certain Bills in the next two or three days with previous practice. I tried to write down her comments accurately, and I hope that I have understood her correctly. If I have not and she is listening, she will probably be able to correct me. I am not trying to misquote her in any way.
My understanding is that 10 Bills were passed at the end of the 1983 Parliament; 14 Bills at the end of the 1987 Parliament; 11 Bills at the end of the 1992 Parliament; and 16 Bills at the end of the 1997 Parliament. Subsequently, we were invited to compare those figures with what she considers to be the modest amount of legislation that the House is being asked to consider in the next two or three days.
Some of my hon. Friends take the view that what happened in the past was unfortunate, but I am not so sure about that. I accept that the party that wins the general election is entitled to legislate and is quite right to introduce as many Bills as it believes it can pass. I accept that train of thought, but the Leader of the House seems to be saying, "See how modest our list of Bills is", whereas I would say that the list is pathetically short. If the Government had anything worth doing—rather than
dithering, posturing, spinning and only seeming to be in control of this country—and were really trying to tackle problems, their list might stand better comparison with the figures that we have just been given.

Mr. Forth: Would my hon. Friend accept an amendment to the words that he has just offered to the House, when he said that an elected Government are entitled to legislate? An elected Government are entitled to put legislation before the House of Commons and the House of Lords and to persuade the majority of those Houses to pass that legislation. That is an elected Government's entitlement; no more, no less.

Mr. Wilshire: That is absolutely right. My right hon. Friend anticipates a point that I want to deal with in a moment or two.
Although I believe that a Government are entitled to introduce Bills and that the Government perhaps stand condemned out of their own mouths for having no real substance to put to the House and to the country, I do not believe that the Government have any right to object to Opposition Members doing properly that which we are here to do, which is to stop them. I make no apologies for trying to frustrate by any means that are legitimately at my disposal a Government whom I consider to be dreadful and damaging to my country and whom I want to remove from office as quickly as I can.
In her second intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, the Leader of the House seemed to say that it was up to her to say what Opposition Members should be saying. She complained about the way in which we are debating the motion and the points that we are making. There we have it: the Government are trying not only to destroy democracy and silence their own Back Benchers, but to write the Opposition's script in this place. I hope that, for those who listen to our debates, that demonstrates the contempt in which we are held by a Government whose time has come.
I hope that the performance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was broadcast live in Bromley. It is absolutely crucial that his electors understand what a brilliant representative they have in this place and how wise they would be to return him with an even bigger majority. It was a tour de force. I am quite glad that I was not called immediately after him, as it would have been a very difficult act to follow.
I do not know whether you had the live feed on in your office before you entered the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker. If you did, you would have witnessed a spectacle that the public should see more often. The House was asked to consider a motion, yet the Minister with responsibility for it did not even bother to stand up and explain it. When challenged as to why that was, the right hon. Lady said that it was because of a tradition that such motions went through on the nod—and that coming from a Government who praise the idea of a Modernisation Committee! It was suggested that all that we were doing was "washing up". My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said earlier that the Government were indeed all washed up; that much I agree with. However, I do not agree with the idea that we are just tidying up a few loose ends.
If the Leader of the House were consistent in her train of thought, she could not continue to say that the important thing is to modernise the House, because to appeal to tradition as a reason for not bothering to debate something makes nonsense of the modernisation to which she so often lays claim.
"Times have changed," people keep telling me—but one thing that has not changed is Labour Members' unwillingness to bother to take part in debates—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. One thing that definitely has not changed is the business before the House, and the narrowness of that debate.

Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to you for making that point, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it brings me to the fact that it was suggested that there would be another business statement tomorrow. I therefore suggest that another such motion will come before us tomorrow, and that a number of my colleagues will want to make a range of points about it.
May I move on to the motion before us in some detail? I am mystified as to why there is such a last-minute panic. Why have we been asked to consider all these ways of truncating debate and rubber-stamping the business before us? We have known since the last Queen's Speech that the election was coming—and I am sure that the Government knew, too. We have had so little business that it could have been finished long ago—yet now we are being asked to deal with it in such a great rush that we cannot debate it.
In fact, we have had an eight-week delay, because the election was going to be in April, then in May, and now it is to be in June. That was another eight weeks in which we could have done all this, and there would have been no need for the motion before us.
As the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, said, much of the motion concerns spending. We should consider the implications of that for a moment. The ability of this House to control expenditure and the raising of tax is one of the primary reasons why we are here. It is highly significant that those very areas are at risk because of the motion that we are considering.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. He made another one earlier, about the workings of Standing Order No. 55, and how dreadful it is that we are not allowed to discuss appropriation matters after 10 o'clock. Perhaps I could remind him, and the rest of the House, that although his description of that Standing Order is correct, it was last amended on 20 March 1997, not only under the Government whom he, like all Conservative Members, supported—and in which some of them served—but during what we are now on the record as calling the "wash-up" period of the previous Parliament. At that time, as the hon. Gentleman may recall, the House adjourned earlier than it needed to, and we had a very long election campaign right at the end of a full five-year Parliament.

Mr. Wilshire: I find that an interesting comment. It suggests to me that some Opposition Members are prepared to reflect on the past and see whether we can improve on it, whereas the Government are perfectly happy to fall back, when it suits their convenience,


on what happened before. When that does not suit their convenience, they try to stifle democracy by doing other things. I hear what the right hon. Lady said, but that was no sort of a point: it simply left her Government exposed for what they are.

Mr. Bercow: I hope and trust that my hon. Friend will not be deflected from the sound points that he is making. Does he agree that if the House had sat on more Fridays, and had not effectively played truant both in February and over Easter, there would be no need for the unseemly haste with which we are now considering matters?

Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend is right, and I sincerely hope that I shall not be deflected by interventions from the Leader of the House.
The motion addresses two fundamental matters that the House should be considering: taxation and expenditure. It took us many years to wrest those issues away from the monarch. In the end, it took a civil war before Parliament obtained the powers that it now has over expenditure.

Mr. Edward Davey: While the hon. Gentleman considers the past and control over public expenditure, will he comment on the fact that not since 1919 has the House rejected an expenditure Question from the Executive?

Mr. Wilshire: I was not here in 1919, so I do not know what debate took place then. If the hon. Gentleman was present, perhaps he will enlighten me later in the Tea Room as to what part he played in the debate.
We are being asked to curtail powers that it took us all that time to get away from the monarch, and that is why we should take this motion seriously Paragraph (1) of the motion states
Government business shall have precedence".
That means precedence over private Members' business, and that demonstrates the contempt in which the Government hold Back Benchers. Not a single private Member's Bill will have reached the statute book in this Session, despite the lack of Government legislation. Even at the last minute, when that mistake could be remedied, the Government intend to prevent further progress on private Members' Bills.
Paragraph (2) states that the House may continue "until any hour". I raised my concern on that point with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but he was not able to give me an answer. If the Leader of the House would be so kind as to listen to the debate, she might be able to help. My right hon. Friend made the point that the motion would allow us to continue debate on Thursday until any hour. If we continued until half-past nine the following morning, Friday would not exist. My point that if we were able, because of the substance of the debate, to continue beyond that point through Saturday and Sunday, we would arrive at half-past nine on Monday, at which point Monday would not exist. The Government have announced that the Queen has agreed to dissolve Parliament on Monday 14 May, but if the debate continues until 9.30 on Monday morning, that day will not exist. I would like the Leader of the House to tell us whether it is possible to dissolve a Parliament on a day that does not exist. If she cannot give us a satisfactory answer, the only conclusion can be that

we will have to have another business motion which we shall have to examine and consider. We might then also lose Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of next week.
Paragraph (3) refers to deferred Divisions, which I considered an abomination when they were introduced. They turn this House into a chat shop, where decisions are not taken on the basis of what has been said in debate but at the convenience of the Government, using us as a rubber stamp. We were told that the introduction of deferred Divisions was part of modernisation, but when it suits the Government's purpose they want to forget all about them. Where is the justice, the fairness, the democracy and the respect for the procedures of the House when the Government say, "When we want to use the House as a rubber stamp by having afternoon Divisions, we will do so, but when it suits us we will forget all that and do things differently"? The Government have made a trap for themselves. Time and again in debates on modernisation, we have told them that they do not know what they are doing. Here is further proof that they do not have a clue what they are doing in the so-called modernisation of the House—and further proof, too, that the Government want the House to be a rubber stamp.
Paragraph (4) refers to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 55, which deals with estimates, and states that the normal requirement of two days' notice is not needed at this stage in a Parliament. In fact, no notice is needed at all, and the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is therefore relevant. Even two days' notice makes an informed debate about estimates almost impossible, so how much more stupid is the proposition facing us today? We are blithely asked—without advance notice, additional information or discussion—to rubber-stamp expenditure estimates of £149,381 billion and £144,305 billion, respectively. Sums so vast must cover a range of expenditure that all hon. Members would support, but the details are not available to the House and there is no chance for debate. Paragraph (4) simply makes worse the previous disgraceful actions in regard to estimates, as described by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton.
Paragraph (5) deals with the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill provisions. Again, large sums of money are involved.

Mr. Andrew Miller: The hon. Gentleman's argument might have had some credibility were it not for the motion passed by the previous Government and voted for by him, which was placed before the House on 12 March 1992. It set aside private Members' business, and stipulated that
Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion in the name of Mr. Francis Maude relating to Estimates".
The hon. Gentleman should have made his argument in 1992. He is wasting the House's time today.

Mr. Wilshire: It is extraordinary how long it took for that intervention to be made. I had moved on from that point, but the Government are so ill prepared for the debate that they have had to rummage in the files for something to say.

Mr. Forth: Does not my hon. Friend consider it intriguing that a so-called modernising Government
constantly pray in aid what the previous Conservative Government did to legitimise their actions? Is that not evidence of a degree of schizophrenia? Either the Government are modernisers and should reject most of what happened in the past, or they should honour what happened in the past and stick to it. They seem to want it both ways.

Mr. Wilshire: I agree absolutely. Certainly, I shall look at the Hansard record of this debate, and cut out and keep the interventions made by Government Members. From 8 June, those hon. Members will be sitting on the Opposition Benches, and their criticisms of today's debate will be quoted back to them.

Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman criticised me for not intervening on him earlier. He has been speaking since 5.14 pm. It is my view, as a democrat, that everyone should be given an opportunity to make their point. However, the hon. Gentleman has been rabbiting on for so long that I thought it time to intervene on him.

Mr. Wilshire: It was very kind of the hon. Gentleman; it gave me a chance to gather my wits about me and check my pages. However, the hon. Gentleman need not fret; this debate can go on until any hour, so I am not depriving him of an opportunity to speak for as long as he wishes if he has anything useful to say about the contempt with which the Government are treating the House.

Mr. Bercow: I am anxious that a hitherto unresolved question should be resolved. My hon. Friend has made a game and stoical effort at penetrating the inner recesses of the mind of the Leader of the House, yet the question still has not been answered. Did the right hon. Lady refrain from proposing the business motion tabled in her name out of a misguided deference to tradition, as is being suggested, or was it because, at the start of the debate, the necessary papers had not been smuggled into the Chamber? Can my hon. Friend answer this important question about the right hon. Lady's motivation for not moving the motion? Was it deference to tradition, was it a free choice, or was it an unavoidable necessity? I would like to know—I am inquisitive and I want an answer.

Mr. Wilshire: I am many things—a few of them good, lots of them bad—but I am not a mind reader. I am therefore unable to oblige my hon. Friend as to what was going on in the mind of the Leader of the House. I am perfectly happy to give way to her if she would like to explain to my hon. Friend something that I am unable to answer on her behalf.

Mrs. Beckett: I do not know why I am bothering, except that anything is better than listening to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). I can assure him and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that I had ample briefing material with me. In fairness, perhaps I should enlighten the House: although I said that there was no precedent for this motion being debated in the past 30 years, as far as I am aware there is no precedent, full stop. Only the records for the past 30 years have been checked. As far as I am aware, no Opposition have

thought it a valuable se of their time to discuss how long we should discuss business that is of some concern to the people of this country at the winding-up of a Parliament.
The unworthy thought did cross my mind that such a shambles is the Opposition that they might decide to waste the time of the House in this way, as no Opposition before them have seen fit to do. I hoped that I was wrong, but I can assure Conservative Members that I was quite prepared to take part in a debate, was it necessary. On the whole, I concluded that it would not be to the benefit of the House and that it was better to leave the shambles in the hands of those who are so practised at creating it.

Mr. Wilshire: There we have it. The right hon. Lady began her intervention by saying that she did not know why she was bothering. That says everything that needs to be said about the Government's attitude to the House. Why bother? We are not even worthy, in the right hon. Lady's estimation, of an explanation.
The right hon. Lady says that this has never happened before. To that I would say, "Methinks I hear modernisation." She should be congratulating us on that, not complaining about it. I make no apology for having a sensible, considered debate about the matters in this motion which are of such importance to democracy in this Chamber.
Paragraph (5), which deals with the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, says much the same as paragraph (4). We will rush through the consolidation part of the Bill and not even bother, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, to have a Second Reading. It gets worse. The paragraph says that notwithstanding the fact that these changes are to be made, Standing Order No. 56, which bans the moving of a committal motion, will apply. So not only do the Government want to get rid of Second Reading and not only do they want us to rubber-stamp the Bill: they want to stop us from committing it to a Committee which might consider it sensibly. That is how much they care.
Some of my colleagues—I forget exactly who—asked what would happen with Lords messages if, on the day, the debates were still continuing. I do not know why my hon. Friends get so excited because, even if we do receive some Lords messages, I have absolutely no doubt that debate on them will be banned by a guillotine motion.
We have before us the type of motion that the House should oppose. The Government have had plenty of time, and they still have time, but we are witnessing a Government who are leaving office exactly as they arrived. They arrived with contempt for Parliament and disdain for democracy. In four years, absolutely nothing has changed. One of their very last acts is once again to try to make a mockery of the House of Commons, of this Parliament, and of the democracy of this country, which has been struggled for for so long. The Minister's refusal even to bother to explain what the motion was about was yet another demonstration of the Government's wish for this Parliament to be a rubber stamp for whatever they want.
The Government's wish to stifle debate in the House should serve as an awful warning to the voters, because if we have another Labour Government we shall witness the completion of their project to turn this country into an elected dictatorship— a dictatorship that they can control at their whim, and in which the House has no part to play. It is a nightmare, and I hope that the electorate notice.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: This has been an entertaining debate in which your tolerance has certainly been stretched, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will endeavour not to stretch it further. My remarks will be brief and specific and will relate to the matter that I referred to in an intervention much earlier.
I shall attach what I am about to say to paragraph (8) of the motion, which says:
At its rising on Friday 11th May, the House shall adjourn to Tuesday 15th May.
I shall briefly say why the House should not adjourn, but first I wish to respond to something that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honion (Mrs. Browning) said.
My hon. Friend referred to an earlier intervention about the work of the Modernisation Committee, and said that a future Conservative Government would remove the Modernisation Committee. I would concede that and agree with that only if the work currently carried out by the Modernisation Committee was transferred to the Procedure Committee, which I chair. The Procedure Committee would be very competent and very able to deal with those matters, and such a transfer would remove a Select Committee currently chaired by a very distinguished and, if I may say so, very traditional leading member of the present Labour Government. I admire much of what the right hon. Lady has done, but I believe that much of the Committee's work has now been done, and that the remainder of the work could be transferred to the Procedure Committee. The fact that that Committee is of course chaired by a Back-Bench Member of the House might give its recommendations more status.

Mrs. Browning: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Winterton: I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Browning: Of course I cannot make any commitment to my hon. Friend as to personalities who might be leading such Committees. I just wish to clarify for him that matters to do with chaging the orders and procedures of the House are a mattr for the House, not matters in relation to which the Executive should be controlling events.

Mr. Winterton: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we can now get back to discussing the motion that is currently before us.

Mr. Winterton: I shall also briefly mention an intervention by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who spoke about the very inadequate way in which the House deals with estimates. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Procedure Committee has made recommendations as to how the House should deal with estimates. It has said that the House should devote more time to the granting of money to the Executive.
However, my very brief and specific remarks will relate to the matter that I raised earlier: the non-eligibility of the borough of Macclesfield for the additional Government

assistance under the business rate relief scheme. I advance that case because the House should not adjourn until it has had the opportunity to discuss that matter. I speak not only for the borough of Macclesfield but for several other local authorities which hon. Members—I think they are both Opposition and Government Members—believe should be eligible under that scheme.
I shall be extremely brief. More than 90 per cent. of the geographical area of the borough of Macclesfield, which I have had the honour to represent for almost 30 years, is rural and agricultural. Only 2.3 per cent. of the working population of that huge area work in agriculture. So the area meets the population sparsity criteria, which is an important part of the business rate relief scheme.
Let me explain reason why I feel incensed and think it necessary to raise the issue in this debate. I have written to the Minister for Local Government and the Regions. I have written to and spoken to the Minister for the Environment, the chairman of the taskforce, with whom I have requested a meeting to discuss the matter because my borough has raised it with me. I believe that there should be a statement on the unfairness of the current position before Parliament is dissolved.
I make a plea to the Government, and hope that a reply may be forthcoming from the Leader of the House. As I have said, I have a quiet but deep respect for much of what the right hon. Lady has sought to do. I see that I am angering my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but I have worked very closely with the right hon. Lady, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). I have done so throughout this Parliament, since she took over from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who chaired the Modernisation Committee at the beginning of this Parliament. I believe that the Leader of the House understands the seriousness of this matter to me and to those whom I represent. If she will assure me that I shall receive a sensible answer as to why Macclesfield is excluded, I shall not press my opposition.

Mrs. Beckett: rose—

Mr. Winterton: Before I give way to the right hon. Lady, may I say that I am all the more incensed, and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) will know this, because the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which is heavily urban and does not have the sparse population of my huge rural area, is eligible for assistance under the scheme. There is an inequity, and I believe that the right hon. Lady believes in justice.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has more than made his point, very forcefully.

Mr. Winterton: You have been extremely generous to me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall be happy to give way to the Leader of the House, and I hope that she can give me an answer.

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that he will receive an answer with which he will be content, but I can certainly undertake to ensure that he receives an answer.

Mr. Winterton: I simply ask the right hon. Lady to explain why Ellesmere Port and Neston, the City of Chester and perhaps Crewe and Nantwich, which has huge urban areas—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been given considerable latitude and, indeed, a reply to his request.

Mr. Winterton: You are indeed charming, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you have been extremely patient and very gracious. I have got my point across. May I say that I do not seek to abuse the rules and procedures of the House? Far be it from me, as Chairman of the Procedure Committee to do so, but all hon. Members, of whichever party, have a duty and responsibility to represent their constituents, which I have sought to do. I rest my case, but I hope that I receive an answer from whoever responds to the debate—and I shall be delighted if the Leader of the House does so.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 321,Noes 1.

Division No.205]
[5.54pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Chaytor, David


Alexander, Douglas
Chidgey, David


Allan, Richard
Clapham, Michael


Allen, Graham
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


(Swansea E)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Austin, John
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bailey, Adrian
Clelland, David


Baker, Norman
Clwyd, Ann


Ballard, Jackie
Coaker, Vernon


Banks, Tony
Coffey, Ms Ann


Barnes, Harry
Cohen, Harry


Barron, Kevin
Connarty, Michael


Battle, John
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Bayley, Hugh
Cooper, Yvette


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Corbett, Robin


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Corston, Jean


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cotter, Brian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cousins, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Cox, Tom


Benton, Joe
Cranston, Ross



Bermingham, Gerald
Crausby, David


Berry, Roger
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Betts, Clive
Cummings, John


Blackman, Liz
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack


Blizzard, Bob
(Copeland)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)
Darvill, Keith


Brake, Tom
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brand, Dr Peter
Davidson, Ian


Breed, Colin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Browne, Desmond
Davis, Rt Hon Terry


Buck, Ms Karen
(B'ham Hodge H)


Burden, Richard
Denham, Rt Hon John


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Dobbin, Jim


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Donohoe, Brian H


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Doran, Frank


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies
Dowd, Jim


(NE Fife)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Cann, Jamie
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Caplin, Ivor
Efford, Clive


Caton, Martin
Ellman, Mrs Louise





Ennis, Jeff
Khabra, Piara S


Etherington, Bill
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fearn, Ronnie
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kirkwood, Archy


Fisher, Mark
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lammy, David


Flint, Caroline
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Follett, Barbara
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lepper, David


Fyfe, Maria
Levitt, Tom


Galbraith, Sam
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gapes, Mike
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gardiner, Barry
Linton, Martin


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
Livsey, Richard


Gerrard, Neil
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)



Gibson, Dr Ian
Llwyd, Elfyn


Gidley, Sandra
Lock, David


Godman, Dr Norman A
McAllion, John


Godsiff, Roger
McAvoy, Thomas


Goggins, Paul
McCabe, Steve


Golding, Mrs Llin
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gorrie, Donald
Macdonald, Calum


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McFall, John


Hain, Peter
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McIsaac, Shona


Hancock, Mike
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hanson, David
Mackinlay, Andrew


Harris, Dr Evan
McNamara, Kevin


Harvey, Nick
McNulty, Tony


Healey, John
MacShane, Denis


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
McWalter, Tony


Hendrick, Mark
McWilliam, John


Heppell, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hill, Keith
Mallaber, Judy


Hinchliffe, David
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hood, Jimmy
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hope, Phil
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Martlew, Eric


Howarth, George (Knowsle[...] N)
Maxton, John


Howells, Dr Kim
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stre[...]ford)
Merron, Gillian


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Miller, Andrew


Hutton, John
Mitchell, Austin


Iddon, Dr Brian
Moffatt, Laura


Illsley, Eric
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Moran, Ms Margaret


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Ham[...]stead)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Jenkins, Brian
Mudie, George


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Naysmith, Dr Doug


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Oaten, Mark


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Ms Jenny
O'Neill, Martin


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Öpik, Lembit


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pendry, Rt Hon Tom


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Pike, Peter L


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pond, Chris


Joyce, Eric
Pope, Greg


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pound, Stephen 


Keeble, Ms Sally
Powell, Sir Raymond


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isl[...]worth)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keetch, Paul
Primarolo, Dawn


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Prosser, Gwyn


Kemp, Fraser
Purchase, Ken


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce






Quinn, Lawrie
Stringer, Graham


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Rammell, Bill
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
(Dewsbury)


Rendel, David
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Robertson, John
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


(Glasgow Anniesland)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rogers, Allan
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Timms, stephen


Rooney, Terry
Todd, Mark


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Touhig, Don


Rowlands, Ted
Trickett, Jon


Roy, Frank
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Ruane, Chris
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Ruddock, Joan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tyler, Paul


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tynan, Bill


Salter, Martin
Vis, Dr Rudi


Sarwar, Mohammad
Walley, Ms Joan


Savidge, Malcolm
Ward, Ms Claire


sedgemore, Brian
Wareing Robert N


Shaw, Jonathan
Watts, David


Sheerman, Barry
Webb, Steve


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Shipley, Ms Debra
Wicks, Malcolm


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Williams Rt Hon Alan


Skinner, Dennis
(Swansea W)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Willis, Phil


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wilson, Brian


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Winnick, David


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Wood, Mike


Soley, Clive
Woodward, Shaun


Southworth, Ms Helen
Worthington, Tony


Spellar, John
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wyatt, Derek


Steinberg, Gerry



Stevenson, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Mr. Ian Pearson and


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Mr. Mike Hall.





NOES


McCrea, Dr William
Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. David Wilshire and



Mr. Eric Forth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That—

(1) At the sitting on Friday 11th May, notwithstanding the provisions of the Order [23rd January] relating to Business of the House, Government business shall have precedence;
(2) At the sittings on Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, Government business may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour;
(3) At this day's sitting, Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, Standing Order No. 38 shall apply and the Order [7th November 2000] relating to Deferred divisions shall not apply if, after the time for the interruption of business, the opinion of the Speaker as to the decision on a question is challenged in respect of any question;
(4) At this day's sitting, the requirements of paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall be dispensed with in respect of the Motion relating to Estimates 2001–02;
(5) At this day's sitting, any Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill ordered to be brought in and read the first time shall be proceeded with as if its Second Reading stood as an Order of the day, and Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall apply;
(6) At this day's sitting, Thursday 10th and Friday 11th May, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any messages from the Lords shall have been received;
(7) At the sitting on Friday 11th May, the House shall not adjourn until the Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses; and
(8) At its rising on Friday 11th May, the House shall adjourn to Tuesday 15th May.

Finance Bill Programme (No. 2)

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Finance Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 9th April:

Consideration and Third Reading

1. (1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order.

(2) Any stage of the Bill may be proceeded with at the conclusion of the preceding stage, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between stages of a Bill brought in on Ways and Means resolutions.

Programming Committees

2. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

Consideration of the Finance Bill in the Standing Committee has been completed: 106 clauses and 300 pages. I am glad to tell the House that the Bill was successfully reprinted overnight, and I am sure that all of us have read it avidly—indeed, those of us who are members of the Standing Committee think of nothing else but reading the Finance Bill.

On Report, we shall discuss new clauses—eight in total—one new schedule and three amendments, all tabled by Opposition parties. I hope that the House will agree to the motion so that we can turn to consideration of the matters that the Opposition want to debate.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: In the tradition of the events that we have just witnessed, it would fall to me to speak for 43 minutes; however, I offer those present consolation by saying that I intend to speak for about 43 seconds. We want to move on to the substance of the debate. I should not like to resume my seat without offering the Paymaster General my condolences: if she really has been thinking of nothing but the Finance Bill—especially this Financial Bill—hers is a sad fate.
It is remarkable to be gathered here today having last spoken about the Bill at the tail end, as we thought, of our proceedings yesterday evening. I have no doubt that the items that we discuss today will be more interesting than many of those that it fell to the Standing Committee to discuss during the past couple of weeks.

Mr. Edward Davey: The Liberal Democrats have no problem with the programme motion. 1 should just like to say that it is a tribute to all three main parties that a smooth consensus operated between them during the proceedings of the Standing Committee.
Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Finance Bill

As amended in the Committee, considered.

New Clause 1

APPLICATION OF DEFINITIONS OF PRIVATE RESIDENCES AND JOB—RELATED ACCOMMODATION

`Sections 222(1), (8) and (8A) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (which define private residence and job—related accommodation for the purposes of relief) shall be applied by the Inland Revenue in the exercise of all of its functions.'.—[Mr. Letwin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is short and simple. Its effect would be to render it necessary for the Inland Revenue to treat all second homes owned by those who, because of their occupation, live and are forced to live in tied accommodation as principal residences for the purposes of, among other things, the working families tax credit. I shall explain briefly why that is necessary.
For many years, the Inland Revenue has treated second homes as principal residences for the purposes of capital gains tax if those second homes are owned by people in the position that  have just described—held as investments or hedges, purchased by people who are forced by their occupation to live in tied accommodation. The rationale for that is clear and a matter of consensus between the political parties. If an individual buys a principal residence, he or she is exempt from capital gains tax on that residence. It is and always has been regarded as reasonable that the second home owned by an individual who is forced by his or her occupation to occupy tied accommodation—perhaps a tenant farmer or farm worker, a caretaker, a person who works for one of the utilities, or a carer —should be treated as exempt for capital gains purposes, as is the primary residence of other individuals.
Were that not the treatment for capital gains purposes, an inequity would have arisen. A farm worker, for example, who was forced to live in tied accommodation would be exposed to one of two serious risks. If he chose to avoid the capital gains problem by not buying a second home, when he left his job or retired, and if in the meantime house prices had, as has been the case cyclically for decades now, risen significantly, he would find himself in serious financial difficulty and might be unable to buy a home or to rent one at a reasonable price. If, on the other hand, while living in tied accommodation he chose to buy the second home but to encounter capital gains tax on selling it, he could find himself at a huge disadvantage compared to those who live permanently in a primary residence, sell that and move elsewhere, and who do not pay capital gains tax. On those grounds, and as a matter of consensus, the Inland Revenue has for many years treated second homes owned by such individuals as principal homes. That is the purpose of section 222 subsections (1),(8) and (8A) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.
6.15 pm
As I understand it—I am open to correction in narrating this history—when the Government introduced the working families tax credit as a substitute for family credit, the officials—I assume from the Department of Social Security—who handled family credit, or at least the rules and practices that guided those officials, transferred themselves to the Inland Revenue and began to administer the working families tax credit as part of the tax system, but according to principles that bore greater similarity to those that had applied in respect of family credit under the DSS. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) frequently alludes to a curious feature of our tax and social security systems, which is that our tax system largely treats individuals as individuals. It does not—or did not before the current Government took office—contain anything recognisable as a graduated means test, as opposed to thresholds of taxation. However, our social security system tends to look at families rather than individuals. It contains heavily graduated means-tested benefits—rather more, regrettably, under the current Government than hitherto. Above all, for the purpose of the current debate it contains a number of wealth tests, unknown in general to the tax system.
For example, I cite the famous case of a person who seeks to enter long-term care. That person will be funded fully by the Government only if his or her wealth is less than £18,000—I believe that that is the correct figure. It was, presumably, on that principle that family credit was never treated as exempt from a wealth test and it is, presumably, also on that principle that the working families tax credit is treated as it is.

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's point serves his argument well. Let me try to assist him. The working families tax credit was indeed built on family credit, and the capital rules on family credit had been in place for 10 years under the previous Government. I do not think tat the issue of capital gains tax serves as a peg on which to hang the debate. The question is whether one has a capital rule and, if so, where the ceiling should be set; not whether, because it lies within the tax system, something should follow capital gains. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that capital rules should be abolished, he must explain why the Conservative Government, in 10 years of presiding over family credit, did not take the opportunity to abolish the capital limits.

Mr. Letwin: The Paymaster General mistakes the character of my argument. I freely acknowledge that capital rules were in place for family credit, just as they are, rightly or wrongly, for other means-tested benefits. I am not accusing the Government of suddenly introducing those rules into the working families tax credit; nor is it our intention to suggest that the capital rules should be removed for the purposes of receiving that credit. I was merely sketching a history. As capital rules have been a feature of benefits rather than taxes, second homes have been treated as a piece of capital. If an individual who lives in tied accommodation obtains a second home, the Inland Revenue will treat him as having capital in that second home for the purposes of disqualification from

working families tax credit, although he would be exempt from capital gains tax were he to sell it. That was also the case with family credit.

Dawn Primarolo: It will help the debate if we clarify the terms that we use when we refer to tied accommodation. What the hon. Gentleman calls the second home is not, in fact, the second home. I understand the issue that he raises and, clearly, capital gains tax does arise on a second home. Tax language is precise, and so must we be. I accept that it is not a question of removing capital gains on second homes. The Opposition are interested in whether there is a requirement to revise the interpretation of "household" in the working families tax credit, which recognises the existence of only one household—the place where people live. We should be clear on that.

Mr. Letwin: The Minister is right; she has not mistaken our argument. I am sorry if the term "second home" caused confusion. It is, literally, a second dwelling that is treated for capital gains tax purposes as a principal dwelling. We believe that if such a house is owned by someone who lives elsewhere in tied accommodation, it should be treated as a principal dwelling—the dwelling—for the purposes of the working families tax credit. We do not want it to be treated as a piece of capital that leads to disqualification from that credit.
I freely admit that we are not launching an attack on the Government. That would be dishonourable because they are merely continuing a practice that pertained in family credit. Our purpose is to spot a lacuna that it is now easy to cure because the Inland Revenue administers both measures. The definition is easily available from the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, for the reasons that I identified—the records are in a single place and easily accessed. All we need is a simple change so that farm labourers and others who are in tied accommodation can obtain the working families tax credit to which their income would otherwise entitle them, notwithstanding the fact that they have purchased a house as a hedge against exposure to the property market because they live in tied accommodation. It appears that the Minister understands our concern. We wait to see whether she accepts the new clause.
I do not know whether the way in which we have drafted the new clause and the mechanism that we have used are appropriate. The Minister has at her disposal the vast resources of the Treasury Solicitor and parliamentary counsel. No doubt she can highlight deficiencies in the drafting and, perhaps, in the mechanics, but the principle is clear and right. I have constituents who are, and have always been, in work and whose income is zero. That might strike people who are not from rural areas as strange, but that is the case for many tenant farmers who find themselves at the bottom of the heap. They are precluded from receiving the working families tax credit by virtue of owning a house, which in many cases is modest, as a hedge against the fact that their tenancy forces them to be in tied accommodation. People in the countryside believe that to be unjust, which it clearly is. I hope that the Minister will tell us that, no matter which party is in power after the election, it will be a matter of political consensus to change the system by an appropriate mechanism.

Mr. Edward Davey: Today we have seen the House at its worst and best.
Time wasting and poor arguments in the debate on the business of the House motion were most unfortunate because that has prevented us from spending more time on this new clause.
I am persuaded by the arguments of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). I wondered what the new clause was trying to achieve because it was not obvious, but his remarks and the Minister's helpful interventions allow mere mortals to get our brains around it. He seems to have hit on an interesting issue. He made it clear that he was not trying to make a party political point, but trying to assist the Government in the operation of their policy. The argument is not just about the capital rules, but about a particular aspect of them; nor is it simply about social justice, but about labour mobility and the efficient operation of the labour market, especially as it applies to rural areas where most tied accommodation is to be found. We know how problematic and severe the difficulties are in many of those areas.
I doubt whether the Minister will accept the new clause. However, unless she has arguments to override the hon. Gentleman's case—I shall pay great attention to her comments—I hope that she will not dismiss the idea out of hand and that her response is in tone with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We may well need to tackle the lacuna early in the next Parliament to ensure that there is social justice and efficiency in the operation of the labour market. This is a small but important issue.

Dawn Primarolo: I hope that I will be able to help the House and that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) will accept my reasons for not being able to accept the new clause, which relates to people in tied accommodation. He mentioned tenant farmers, but there is a long list of people who also live in such accommodation. The issue involves property that they might hold for their retirement or when they move occupations, when it will become their main residence. He fully appreciates that if the property were rented out and an income generated, the working families tax credit would probably not be triggered because the income from the property might take the family's income beyond its limits.
6.30 pm
When the Government designed and implemented the working families tax credit, we used family credit as a building block for reasons of speed. The working families tax credit became operational in about 18 months and it has been a huge success in providing help to working families. I think that the hon. Member for West Dorset acknowledged that fact when he said that a group of people should be entitled to the credit even though they do not receive it at present because of the way in which the rules operate.
Neither during the design period of the working families tax credit nor during its operational period have we received representations that this issue might be a problem. Foot and mouth disease and the problems that it has caused in rural areas have probably put the spotlight on tenant farmers even though they are not the only people affected. Despite that fact, the issue is low key and it has hardly registered on our radar in terms of the

number of representations that have been made. None the less, the hon. Gentleman has highlighted the problem of tenant farmers. If they lived in the other house, there would be no question about their ability to claim the working families tax credit provided that they received no other income that would take them over the limit.

Mr. Howard Flight: The problem is not just foot and mouth, but that of declining farm incomes. Since the working families tax credit was introduced, I have been surprised to find in my constituency that many tenant farmers, who do not own other houses, rely on the credit to survive. Foot and mouth is not the immediate issue.

Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman is so appreciative of the credit. I will not descend to making a partisan comment—although I am sorely tempted to do so—because he makes a reasonable point about the issues involved.
I appreciate the comparison that the hon. Member for West Dorset made with capital gains tax, but the new clause will not necessarily produce the outcome that he seeks. It refers to all the functions covered by the Inland Revenue, and I cannot accept the mechanism that he suggests because there is a real risk that it could inadvertently change the application of the law in several other sectors. I am sure that he does not intend it to do that. For example, it could have implications when the Inland Revenue has to take a view on all sorts of tax issues relating to the status of a company, its shareholders, or employees when accommodation is provided. I am sure that he will accept that point.
The phrase in the new clause "all of its functions" worried me to such an extent that I had to ask one of my Revenue officials to return from a day's holiday to help us with this issue. It happens to be his birthday and I am sure that the House is extremely sorry to have deprived him of the opportunity to celebrate it with his children. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh dear."] Even Revenue officials are entitled to a day off occasionally.
The working families tax credit is governed by regulations, and regulations that come before the House are the appropriate means to implement such a change if the Government are persuaded that it is necessary. About 17,000 farmers and farm labourers already receive the working families tax credit, and it greatly assists them.
I hope that the hon. Member for West Dorset will take my word that the new clause does not provide the solution and that it would create problems elsewhere. Therefore, I hope that he will not press it to a Division. If he does, I regret that I will have to ask my hon. Friends to oppose it. I need to consider the principle in more detail as there are other complications. For example, tenant farmers are self-employed and the rent for land, which may be subject to a low rate, may be offset in their profits and losses.
This is not a huge issue People are not knocking down the doors of the Treasury or the Inland Revenue or even writing to us about it. However, after the return of the House, I will be prepared to reconsider the matter and I undertake to speak to the hon. Gentleman about how we can deal with the problem. We shall certainly have corrected the problem by the time that integrated child credit takes over in 2003, but he is pressing me to act a little more quickly. I am willing to consider the issue 


in more detail and the secondary legislation route of regulations may be the best means of addressing the issue if the Government decide to act.
The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot give him an absolute commitment, but I give him my word that I shall consider the issue closely and talk to him again, if necessary, about the details.

Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Paymaster General for her reply. I take her point that a statutory change of type suggested by the new clause may have unintended consequences. I am delighted to hear that it may be possible to resolve the problem in regulations. Therefore, it appears that, whoever is in government, we shall be able to find a solution, and that fact will be widely welcomed.
The Paymaster General is right she will not have received many letters on this subject. The representations that have been made to me and to other Members representing rural constituencies are almost the result of happenstance and of talking to individual constituents. As she and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) suggested, the decline in farm incomes, which has been compounded by foot and mouth, has brought the issue to light. However, I regret to say that most of the people most affected are not in a condition to write letters to Ministers. That is why urgent action is needed. Regulations might be an appropriate way forward and I take the hon. Lady's word that she will consider their introduction. That is what we will do if we find ourselves in her shoes after the election. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

CHILDREN'S TAX CREDIT: CHILDREN UNDER FIVE YEARS OF AGE

'(1) After section 257AA(2) of the axes Act 1988 (which specifies the amount by reference to whic the children's tax credit is calculated) insert—
(2AA) for a year of assessment during the whole or part of which is qualifying child under five years of age (or more than one) is resident with the claimant, subsection (2) above has effect as if the amount specified there were increased by £200.

(2) After subsection (3) of that section (reduction of amount where claimant has income within the higher rate band) insert:
(3AA) Where subsection 12AA) above applies, the reference in subsection (3) above to the amount specified in subsection (2) above is to the higher amount applicable by virtue of subsection (2AA) above.".

(3) After subsection (4) of that section (meaning of "qualifying child") insert:
(4AA) In this section 'qualifying child under five years of age', in relation to a year of assessment, means a qualifying child less than five years of age at the beginning of that tax year.".

(4) In section 257C(1) and (3) of the Taxes Act 1988 (indexation) for "257AA(2)" substitute "257AA(2) and (2A) and (2AA)".

(5) Schedule 13B to the Taxes Act 1988 (children's tax credit: Provisions applicable where child lives with more than one adult in a year of assessment) is amended in accordance with Schedule 11A to this Act.

(6) Subsections (1) to (3) and (5) above have effect for the year 2003–04 and subsequent years of assessment.

(7) Subsection (4) above has effect for the purposes of the application of section 257AA of the Taxes Act 1988 for the year 2004–05 and subsequent years of assessment.'.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss new schedule 1— `Children's Tax Credit: Children under five years of age: supplementary—

Introduction

1. Schedule 13B to the Taxes Act 1988 (children's tax credit: provisions applicable where child lives with more than one adult in a year of assessment) is amended as follows.

Child living with married or unmarried couple

2. After paragraph 3(2) (provisions applicable where neither partner has income above the basic rate limit entitlement where both partners claim in respect of a relevant child) insert—
(2AA) If a relevant child is a qualifying child under five years of age the reference in sub-paragraph (2)(b) above to the amount mentioned in section 257AA(2) is to the higher amount applicable by virtue of subsection (2A) of that section.".

Child living with more than one adult: other cases

3.—(1) Paragraph 6 (provisions applicable in case of child living with more than one adult) is amended as follows.

(2) After sub-paragraph (4) (apportionment of entitlement) insert—
(4AA) If the child is a qualifying child under five years of age the reference in sub-paragraph (4) above to the amount mentioned in section 257AA(2) is to the higher amount applicable by virtue of subsection (2A) of that section".

(3) After sub-paragraph (7) (claim by person with more than one allotted proportion) insert— 
(7A) Where sub-paragraph (7) above applies in relation to a person, and any child in respect of which a proportion has been, or could have been, allotted to that person is a qualifying child under five years of age the reference in that sub-paragraph to the amount mentioned in section 257AA(2) is to the higher amount applicable by virtue of subsection (2A) of that section".

Combined cases

4. In paragraph 7 (provisions applicable where child lives with more than one couple or with one or more couples and one or more other adults), after sub-paragraph (2) insert—

"(3) Where paragraph 6(4A) or (7A) above applies, the reference in sub-paragraph (2) above to the amount mentioned in section 257AA(2) is to the higher amount applicable by virtue of subsection (2A) of that section.".'.

Mr. Ottaway: The new clause would give any parent with a child under the age of five and who is entitled to the children's tax credit an extra £4 a week or £200 a year. It is no secret that that proposal forms part of the Conservative party's manifesto and we look forward to introducing such a measure in the Finance Bill that will be presented after the election. We moved the new clause because we feel that the Labour party's support for children is inadequate.
Earlier today, the Chancellor set out several pledges that he hopes to fulfil in the next Parliament. If he finds himself in that position, we wish him more success than he has had in fulfilling his pledges in this Parliament. One of his pledges was to halve child poverty; I must tell the House that he would make a good start in achieving that objective by accepting our new clause, which would go a long way towards reducing child poverty.
The Conservative party recognises the importance of the family as the basis of a free and ordered society and, in particular, believes that marriage plays an important role as the best environment in which to raise children. In general, children from two-parent families do better at school, have better chances in life and are less likely to end up ensnared in crime. Although the new clause focuses exclusively on the children's tax credit, which can be claimed regardless of someone's marital status, we submit that both matters are interrelated; I shall briefly dwell on that.
A future Conservative Government will reintroduce the married couples allowance, in addition to the children's tax credit, which is the subject of our debate. We will do so because the two allowances go hand-in-hand to promote the welfare of children.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much both those things will cost?

Mr. Ottaway: The introduction of the married couples allowance will cost about £1 billion and, as I shall spell out shortly, this particular proposal will cost £300 million. They make up part of the £8 billion worth of tax cuts that we have announced.
In his 1999 Budget, the Chancellor said: 
we will replace the married couples allowance with a new family tax cut that will increase the amount that goes to help families with children. This children's tax credit will give more—not less—help to families at the time when they need it most—when they have their children and when their children are growing up."—[Official Report, 9 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 182.]
That is a laudable objective and a clear statement of policy. However, I submit that is an inadequate and failed policy; what the Chancellor promised has not happened. The children's tax credit does not replace the married couples allowance; nearly 5 million people who were entitled to the allowance are excluded from claiming the tax credit. People have to have children to claim children's tax credit, but many married couples do not have children.

Dawn Primarolo: Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House the exact conditions under which the Conservative party would reintroduce the married couples allowance? I thought that the allowance would be only for couples with children under 11. The Conservatives are not reintroducing the married couples allowance because, of course, lots of married couples have children over 11.

Mr. Ottaway: The Minister makes my point for me; the children's tax credit does not benefit married people, either—[Interruption.] I shall come to the Minister's point. There is no limit to the aspirations of the

Conservative party. We have set out our aims and objective for 2003 to 2004. Unlike the Labour party, we generally believe that the concept of marriage is worth supporting and we will use our best endeavours to expand allowances wherever possible.

Dawn Primarolo: Does the hon. Gentleman believe in marriage so much that he believes that couples will be committed to it only if we pay them?

Mr. Ottaway: We believe in marriage, so the point of the policy is to encourage people to marry.

Mr. Mark Hendrick: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the fact that a couple is, or is not, married does not necessarily affect the stability of their relationship? In fact, a married couple could be in an unstable relationship and an unmarried couple could be in a stable relationship. Why the necessity to pay people to get married?

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but research shows that children brought up by a married couple are more likely to do better at school and less likely to commit crime, as I said a few minutes ago.
The hon. Gentleman's party believes in family life, and family life is enshrined in marriage, which is why we support it. One should take a hard look at ministerial statements and, indeed, the 1997 Labour manifesto, which states:
We will uphold family life as the most secure means of bringing up our children. Families are the core of our society.
We believe that the concept of a married family is better than the concept of an unmarried family; that is the point of our policy.

Mr. Hendrick: Clearly, stability is important in any relationship. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously telling us that, given the fact that his party is committed to £16 billion worth of c>uts, it is prepared to pay £1.3 billion to encourage people to get married?

Mr. Ottaway: First, I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got his figure of £16 billion. There will actually be £8 billion worth of tax cuts. Like the Prime Minister, the hon. Gentleman can pluck artificial figures from the air. We have made it quite clear that we are committed to £8 billion worth of public expenditure cuts and, as a result, will be able to deliver £8 billion worth of tax cuts.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman with the exact source of the £16 billion. A Conservative press notice last July said that the Conservative party believed that the Government were overspending some £600 per head of population which, multiplied up, came to £16 billion. The Government did not produce that figure; the Conservative party itself released it.

Mr. Ottaway: The spin machine in Millbank has got to try a bit harder than that. In the long term, we hope to give substantially more than £8 billion worth of tax cuts to the British people; that is where the Economic


Secretary got that convoluted concert. Unlike the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, we are precise and accurate about what we intend to do. Before the last election, the Prime Minister said that he had no plans for any tax increases at all but, in this Parliament alone, we have had something like 45 tax increases. When it comes to accuracy, the Economic Secretary had better put her own house in order before she starts criticising our party.
As I said, the children's tax credit does not replace the married couples allowance; nearly 5 million people entitled to the MCA are excluded from claiming the CTC. I must tell the Paymaster General that I am raising that matter because the Chancellor said that the children's tax credit would replace the married couples allowance. Clearly, it does not and, as a result, millions are worse off. In truth, it is another Labour stealth tax.
The children's tax credit did not replace the married couples allowance; it was introduced a year after the MCA lapsed. As a result, everybody had to pay higher taxes—yet another Labour stealth tax. The children's tax credit is not available to higher rate taxpayers, as it tapers out quite quickly once the threshold is reached. That is another stealth tax and another breach of the Chancellor's pledge to eliminate means testing. It is quite remarkable that the Chancellor, who said at his party conference that he was pledged to eliminate means testing from the welfare system, has presided over the biggest increase in means-testing in recent history.
Fourthly, the credit discriminates against one-earner families. It contains a perverse anomaly that we raised during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill last year. A higher rate taxpayer earning £45.000 per annum will have lost all entitlement, yet a family with two earners on £30,000 each, making a household income of £60,000 a year, will get the credit. Thus, a family with £60,000 a year gets it, whereas a family with £45,000 a year does not. In the debate on the Finance Bill last year, the Government said that they would look into the anomaly, recognising the force of the Opposition's arguments, but they have taken no steps whatever to rectify the anomaly.

Miss Johnson: Would the hon. Gentleman remove the right to independent taxation, which is the basis of our present tax system and allows a man and a woman in the same household to be taxed independently? He is criticising a much-prized feature of our tax system.

Mr. Ottaway: I am not criticising that at all. Independent taxation was introduced by a Conservative Government, and we are proud of it. I was pointing out that the Government had made a pig's ear of the system as a result of their independent taxation. How anybody can design a credit which gives a benefit to the better off but not to the less well off is beyond me. I see that the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), is grinning at that proposition. I am happy to give way to him, but I see that he considers it appropriate to walk off, as he does not want to back up the Government's argument.
I come to my fifth point. Because of the Government's incompetence, there is likely to be a low take-up of the credit. The complexity of the forms to claim the children's tax credit is proving to be too great for many people. It is believed that there are about 2 million eligible families who have not applied for it. The figure comes from a

written answer from the Treasury in February 2001. If Ministers want to bring the information up to date and tell us how many people are entitled to receive the credit but have not claimed it, I look forward to hearing from them.

Miss Johnson: I intended to deal with that later when I replied, but I shall update the figures now for the hon. Gentleman. Some 3.5 million forms have already been returned by people claiming children's tax credit. That represents more than 85 per cent. of the eligible PAYE population. Claims are still coming in and we expect a steady flow throughout the year. People who claim later will not lose out, as their CTC will be backdated to the start of the tax year. We are delighted that the take-up rate is so high. The February figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman predate the start of the financial year and of the new tax credit. That may well account for the discrepancy, but it is a pity that he has come to the House without getting the figures updated.

Mr. Ottaway: What a cheek for the Minister to tell us that hundreds of thousands of people entitled to claim the credit have not done so, and for her to claim that that is an achievement on the Government's part. It is a disgrace that hundreds of thousands of people are entitled to the credit but have not applied. It ill behoves the Minister to take that attitude.

Mr. Hendrick: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He says that it is a disgrace that hundreds of thousands have not claimed CTC, yet his party criticises the Government for using publicity to the extent that they have.

Mr. Ottaway: The reason why so many people have not claimed the credit is that the application forms are complex and hard to understand. That is why a simplified system under a future Conservative Government will be welcomed by all, particularly the hundreds of thousands of people who are entitled to claim but have not done so.

Mr. Bennett: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and it is nice to witness his conversion to concern for the under-fives and their families. Can he explain why, for the 18 years of the previous Conservative Government, no attempt was made to use the child benefit provisions to pay different rates to children of different age groups?

Mr. Ottaway: We gave the married couples allowance, which was a universal benefit. [Interruption.] We did not eliminate it. It was there—

Miss Johnson: rose—

Mr. Ottaway: I have not given way to the hon. Lady. I am answering the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).

Mr. Bennett: We are not discussing the married couples allowance. We are dealing with a special benefit for families with children under five. I want to know why the Conservatives did not have that interest between 1979 and the last election. If they were so concerned, why did they not introduce a provision under the child benefit
regulations that allowed them to pay a higher rate to particular age groups of children? Why the conversion now? Is it because they are in opposition?

Mr. Ottaway: It is because the Conservative party is prepared to look to the future. We do not intend to dwell on the past and drag out old recriminations about why we did not do this or that, or whether amendments were tabled to previous Finance Bills to provide extra benefits for the under-fives—maybe yes, maybe no. We are looking to the future. The new Conservative party is prepared to go forward on proposals such as those contained in the new clause. We recognise that the under-fives are a group of children who need special help. We are targeting the under-fives because we believe that they are most entitled to the benefit.

Miss Johnson: Can the hon. Gentleman explain to me and my hon. Friends why child benefit was frozen for a period and was not increased over the term of the previous Government as it has been by this Government, who have put record increases into child benefit? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the previous Government cut the value of the married couples allowance?

Mr. Ottaway: Yes, I confirm that the previous Government cut the value of the married couples allowance.
Our argument is that the children's tax credit has not been designed as well as it could have been. It should be a simpler and a fairer structure. As it is currently designed, the tax credit is a duplication. As the Minister knows, the 10 per cent. band covers the first £1,500 of taxable income. The CTC merely duplicates the relief that would be available at 10 per cent., which is not available to those who are entitled to CTC. Indeed, when the working families tax credit is taken into account, the children's tax credit is a triplication. The credit does not give parents with younger children the level of support that they need and deserve. A discriminating, inadequate, poorly thought out measure incompetently introduced is not the way to support the nation's children.
The next Conservative Government will increase the children's tax credit for parents with children under the age of five by £200 per annum by 2003–04. We will devote £300 million of our £8 billion capacity for tax cuts to reducing the income tax payable by parents with a child under the age of five. That, coupled with our pledges to restore the married couples allowance, to simplify the system, and to arrest the advance of means-testing with all its complexity, means that only the Conservative party recognises the problems of the family and is prepared to do something about them.

Mr. Bennett: If it is so important to help the family, why should families have to wait so long for help?

Mr. Ottaway: We have made it clear that we intend to phase the help in over the first three years of the next Parliament. The hon. Gentleman and the Minister know that we have accepted the Government's spending plans and tax plans for the first year of the next Parliament.

We will introduce ax cuts and achieve reductions in public expenditure in years two and three. The figure that I mentioned is for 2003–04.

Dawn Primarolo: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman correctly? Did he confirm that if by some disaster his party were elected at the general election it would be committed to spending cuts and tax cuts, and it would expect the electorat to believe that everything would remain the same?

7 pm

Mr. Ottaway: The Paymaster General makes it seem like I have revealed some secret. We have made it perfectly clear in countless press conferences that by 2003–04 we will have reduced public expenditure by £8 billion on the figure announced in the Red Book and in the comprehensive spending review last November. That is well-documented. It is our policy, and the hon. Lady knows what public expenditure we are committed to maintaining and where our adjustments will be made.

Mr. Hendrick: The Conservative party is willing to pay £1.6 billion to entice people into getting married. If those people decided to divorce, would it be willing to claw back all the benefits they received when they were married to prove that it was not a marriage of convenience?

Mr. Ottaway: I am not quite sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. If people were to divorce, they would not be entitled to the married couples allowance, because they would no longer be married.

Mr. Hendrick: The Conservatives would spend £1.6 billion of taxpayers' money to give people an incentive to get married. If they decided to get divorced a few years later, would the Conservative party claw back that extra benefit to prove that it was not a marriage of convenience?

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman is getting his figures in a twist. We are not proposing to spend £1.6 billion on the married couples allowance: the figure is £1 billion. I am araid that the hon. Gentleman's point about clawing back the benefit is lost on me. Perhaps he would write to me about it, and I will give him an answer.

Dr. William McCrea: Is not it strange to talk about £1.6 billion or £1 billion to encourage people to get married? Labour Members seem to be sneering at the basic morality of marriage. Why should we sneer about the fact that people get married?

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman is on to something. For the past 20 minutes, there has been nothing but criticism and sneering at the concept of marriage. I should like mildly to correct the hon. Gentleman on one point. Our proposal is not a reward for marriage: it is a recognition of marriage. The Conservative party believes in marriage, whereas it is becoming manifestly clear that the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) does not.

Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ottaway: This is a guillotined debate, and I have given way three or four times, so 1 shall not give way again.
Families have suffered a systematic increase in taxation over the past four years. How does it help our children if their parents are taxed up to the hilt? If people smoke, drink, drive a car, have a pension or are married, they have been subjected to 45 increases in taxation during this Parliament. Such regressive taxes hit those on lowest incomes hardest—the people in Labour's heartlands. The average family pays more than £600 a year more tax under Labour. The Conservative party will reverse the trend. We will take 1 million pensioners out of taxation. We will make income from savings tax free for millions. That is the way to help our children.
The Conservative party is in tune with the British public. We will reduce taxation and will liberate the nation's creativity.

Mr. Edward Davey: There may be a germ of a good idea in this new clause. The serious, wider policy debate is about the best way of providing support for families and children, whether couples are married or unmarried. The Government are gradually moving towards a coherent approach, and they may get there by hook or by crook. At the moment, the system is highly complicated, with child benefit, child care tax credit, working families tax credit and children's tax credits. Previously, we had the married couples allowance, which was available whether couples were married or not.
This is a complex area, and the Finance Bill adds to that complexity by introducing the babies tax credit, which is available to families with children under the age of 1. Having created some of that complexity to meet their laudable objective of reducing child poverty, the Government are now trying to tidy things up. The Chancellor is working towards an integrated children's credit. As the Government move towards a more rational, streamlined approach to ensure that families have the resources they need to tackle child poverty, the question is whether it is a good idea to include families with children under the age of 5 in the proposals for an integrated children's credit.

Mr. Bennett: Do the Liberal Democrats think that it is a good idea? My impression from listening to the arguments about child benefit was that, although one could identify loss of earnings as a problem for families with very small children, after the first year small children do not cost families anything like as much as young teenagers.

Mr. Davey: I am grateful for that intervention, because I was just about to explain my party's position on this issue and the thinking behind it. We have some sympathy with the idea of rewarding families with children under the age of 5. That could be achieved through a premium on child benefit or through the mechanism in the new clause. The hon. Gentleman is right that children cost more in their first year. The Government were right to acknowledge that, although we believe that they could have gone about it differently—for example, through a maternity grant. Many of the costs in the first year are up-front and not spread through the year, as the proposal for a babies tax credit suggests.
We understand that argument, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that there are not just costs but benefits in ensuring that a family has more money in those early years. It would give parents a real choice between staying at home to look after their children or going to work.
>
The Government have continually tried to give the impression that they want new mothers to go back to work as soon as possible: that has been part of the rhetoric and, indeed, part of the Government's tax and benefits strategy. I fear that they may have gone too far in advocating an early return to work for new mothers, and it is in that context that I see the germ of a good idea in new clause 2.
It may well be—and I believe some sociological studies suggest—that it is beneficial to young children for their parents to have more contact with them in their earlier years, before they go off to nursery school, playschool or primary school. There is a serious policy question to be asked: should the tax and benefits system make it easier for parents to remain at home during those first five years?
I hope that, in response to today's debate and as they proceed with the debate on integrated children's credit over the next year or two—I say that assuming that Labour will be returned to office—the Government will consider the issue in some depth. The commissioning of research, and a wider public debate, may be required to establish whether it makes sense—in terms of effects on the labour market, and in terms of effects on the welfare of families and children—to ensure that the money that we are putting aside is targeted at the early years.
In many ways, the whole debate is about where resources should be targeted. One of the aims of the children's tax credit was to augment the funds going to families, without augmenting only a universal benefit—child benefit. The Government considered taxing child benefit, as the Conservatives had done before them, but for various reasons they decided against it, and ended up with the children's tax credit. Again, they were trying to find the best way of targeting resources more effectively.
The new clause raises the important question of whether we should target resources at children during those early years. I think that there is a strong argument for doing so, but 1 should like the Government to commission further research, and I think that we should engage in a wider public debate. Only when we see the results of research will we know the facts. Perhaps we should target even more resources at families with children under five than the new clause suggests; perhaps we should be much more ambitious. That might be the quickest, most tax-efficient and most expenditure-efficient way of meeting the Chancellor's objective of halving child poverty in 10 years.
As I have said, there is a serious issue behind new clause 2. I hope that, rather than taking the partisan, political point-scoring route down which the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) seemed to be tempting Ministers, the Government will address themselves to what I consider to be the really serious policy issue.

Miss Melanie Johnson: Let me begin by responding to the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). I think it useful for our policies to be based on evidence; indeed, work continues in the Treasury in an attempt to ensure that they reflect the real needs of society, in terms of child poverty, as much as is possible at any one time.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) did not take into account the Government's introduction of a number of measures reflecting the extra costs incurred by the parent of a child under five. One way of
structuring such measures is to take account of the cost of children over lifetime— which has been done, in that there is £5 more child benefit for the first child, throughout its lifetime, than there is for second and subsequent children.

Mr. Ottaway: Does the Minister think that she is doing enough? Does she not think that more could be done for the under-fives?

Miss Johnson: I intend to deal with that in much more detail. Let me say initially, however, that we have reduced the number of children in poverty by 1.2 million during the life of the current Parliament. That includes many children under five, as it includes many over five, and it represents a substantial improvement.
The increase in maternity pay from £60.20 to £100, the extension of paid maternity leave from 18 to 26 weeks and the introduction of two weeks' paternity leave in 2003 will help the parents of under-fives. As the ex-parent, as it were, of three under-fives, including twins, I speak with personal experience of the substantial needs of those with young children in the house, in terms of both income and time.

Mr. Davey: The Minister—who, I am sure, is not an ex-parent—mentioned maternity and paternity leave. Have the Government considered parental leave? Some countries give parents leave that they can take later in their children's lives, which is often limited to the first five years. That provides greater flexibility: it can be used, for example, when a child is ill.

Miss Johnson: The idea has been suggested in a number of quarters, and is being discussed. Consultation is taking place. As I said at the outset, we are keen to give the best possible support to families with children in general, but to those with children under five in particular.
The Opposition seem to want to increase children's tax credit by £200. Lest, by any quirk of fate, the Opposition might be in charge of a Finance Bill after a general election—unlikely as that may seem now—I should point out that, as drafted, the new clause would reduce it by £20. As the sum in question is 10 per cent. of an allowance, the figure should be £2,000.
The Government will, in fact, increase children's tax credit by a further £520 in the year of the child's birth, and will do so from 2002 rather than 2003—which is what I understand the hon. Gentleman to propose, assuming that he is thinking in terms of £ 200 rather than £20. What we are already doing is far better than what the Opposition suggest. It is more, it is earlier, and it focuses resources on the time when parents are most in need.

Mr. Ottaway: The Minister is right: we intend the amount to be increased by £200. We have taken into account the increases in the pipeline, and this is over and above those increases.

Miss Johnson: Is it over and above the introduction of babies credit?

Mr. Ottaway: Yes.

Miss Johnson: That is interesting. I thank the hon. Gentleman. I will come to the £16 billion later.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has urged other courses on me, but I cannot resist returning to some of the slightly wider political issues, on which we have been much tempted by the hon. Member for Croydon, South. First, I turn t the married couples allowance, on which he spent considerable time.
The so-called reintroduction of the married couples allowance is probably a complete misnomer. For the Conservatives to say that the new clause would reintroduce the married couples allowance involves considerable spin. It would do nothing of the sort. It is a proposal for married couples to transfer their personal allowance between themselves. It does not benefit many married couples, or indeed many families with children. Eight out of 10 married couples would gain absolutely nothing from the proposal; eight out of 10 families with children would gain nothing from it. For example, single parents and married couples who were both in work would gain nothing, despite the fact that the hon. Gentleman claimed lie supported marriage and that the proposal was partly about that. Married couples with secondary school-aged children would gain nothing from it because of the cut-off at the age 11. I do not know what Conservative party policy is on helping children and families out of poverty where the children are aged over 11, because the new clause does not address their needs.
This Government have been committed to helping families with children and have introduced the working families tax credit and the children's tax credit, and those policies will lift 1.2 million children out of poverty.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that Conservative Members have never explained why they did nothing about this matter throughout all their years in government? The House debated the cost of children in 1976, when Baroness Castle introduced the child benefit legislation. The then Conservative Opposition said that they would like to do more for children in families, yet they did nothing for 18 years.

Miss Johnson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's recollection of a time when I was not an hon. Member, but I do remember that nothing was done. In proposing the new clause, the Lon. Member for Croydon, South did nothing to answer questions that my hon. Friend, I and other Labour Members put to him about why these issues, by which he apparently sets so much store now, were not addressed over those 18 years, when there was ample opportunity to do so.

Mr. Flight: May I make two points? First, the proposal for married couples is additional to existing provision, so it is not a debate about taking something back, or whether to have A or B. Secondly, it is specifically targeted at married couples with children under 11, partly to offset some of the bias against mothers, or fathers for that matter, who wish to stay at home to look after children. In particular, it is designed to give mothers a little more flexibility. We can debate what was done in the past, but the Minister is wrong to seek to cast the proposal in a negative light. She may disagree with it, but it is specifically tailored to meet the needs of a group of people who wish to stay at home a little longer to look after their children while they are younger.

Miss Johnson: Yes, but that is exactly why I said that calling it a reintroduction of the married couples


allowance was a very spun description. The hon. Gentleman accepts that it is a targeted measure and that it does not help many who are married, or, indeed, many who have children. As I said, eight out of 10 married couples and eight out of 10 families with children will gain nothing. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Croydon, South is burbling some further remark from a sedentary position. I did not catch exactly what it was and he may want to intervene again, but may I remind him that it is this Government who have increased child benefit to £15.50 a week for the first child and £10.35 a week for subsequent children? That is a 26 per cent. real-terms increase over the life of this Parliament.
People will have to judge for themselves—they are getting the opportunity not only to make that judgment, but to act upon it—whether our record of increasing child benefit by record amounts stands up against the record of the Conservative Government, who promised tax cuts and hiked tax up, who promised to help people but put 3 million on the dole and who froze child benefit; they did not increase child benefit in line even with inflation at various periods. I am proud to stand in support of what the Government have done. Our record speaks for itself.

Mr. Ottaway: I presume that the Minister is advancing an argument against the new clause She has to say why she does not believe that more can be done for families, and why £200 a year, or £4 a week, would not help children, rather than going on about the past.

Miss Johnson: I have already said why I believe that it is better to take the action that we are taking through the various measures that we have introduced. which support families, and why increasing support for children in their first year of life, which we have just introduced, is a valuable support.

Mr. Hendrick: Given that the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has accepted that no such comparable measures were introduced in 18 years of Conservative government and that we should look forward to "a new Conservative Government", will my hon. Friend be willing to invite him to intervene in order for him to apologise for that omission over 18 years?

Miss Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. I would be happy to take him up on it, but I appreciate, as he will, that the hon. Member for Croydon, South is well aware of the invitation that has just been extended to him and is not leaping to his feet. I think that we will all draw our own conclusions from that.
The introduction of a new children's tax credit at £10 per week from April is worth £520 a year—more than twice the value of the married couples allowance that it replaces. From next April, the children's tax credit will be raised to £20 a week in the year of a child's birth, which will in effect double the allowance in the first year of a child's life.
I was much amused by the remarks of the hon. Member for Croydon, South on the form that is required. It is easy to allege that forms are complicated, but that was an absolute load of nonsense. The form was thoroughly tested with the help of 1,000 volunteer taxpayers—indeed, I am told that the forms that the Inland Revenue has received have been completed to a very high standardand—

and it asks for the most basic information, such as the name, the date of birth of the child and the partner's national insurance number. It does not ask claimants to detail their income or to provide complicated details.
7.30 pm
Many people have completed the forms quite satisfactorily. As I said, 3.5 million claims have been made, encompassing 85 per cent. of the eligible PAYE population. The hon. Member for Croydon, South probably does not want me to remind him of the fact that, despite years of work in trying to improve take-up, family credit had a much lower take-up rate than the children's tax credit has had.
The Government would like take-up to be even higher. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said when commenting on publicity, the Government will do everything that we can to ensure that those who, for one reason or another, are not aware of the credit or have not yet claimed it do so. We are working on that, and the forms are continuing to come in.

Mr. Ottaway: The Minister makes it sound as though complaints about the form's complexity are being made only by the Opposition. I was quoting the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, which presumably knows what it is talking about. It said that the application
form is very complex. For those not used to filling in tax forms, the task may prove to be too arduous and some will lose out on an allowance altogether.

Miss Johnson: I am completely mystified by that statement, but I am sure that we could quite quickly find the hon. Gentleman a copy of the form. The details required could not be simpler or more basic, and it is unlikely that, in supplying them, taxpayers would have to do other than perhaps look up their national insurance number if they did not know it.

Mr. Flight: The Minister made a similar point when I spoke about this issue in a previous debate. I think that the form that is being referred to—I remember receiving one myself—is the one sent out a year earlier to determine whether people would qualify for the credit. That form went to the heart of the problem about how much each partner earned and whether they would be ineligible for the credit because one partner was earning too much. It was extremely difficult to complete, and if one did not complete it correctly one did not receive the instant form. Half a million people, including several of my constituents, never got round to submitting their claim promptly in April because they had not completed the previous pre-qualification form.

Miss Johnson: As I said, 85 per cent. of the eligible PAYE population have satisfactorily sent in their forms, we have had a very high response rate, and the forms are still coming in. The hon. Gentleman may be referring to another form, but the fact is that anyone claiming the children's tax credit has only to supply some very basic information. The tax office will take that information, assess the tax credit and make it available to claimants as a tax cut in their pay packet.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South made the remarkable allegation that the Government have shown a lack of support in addressing the issue of child poverty.
I simply remind him that the previous Conservative Government not only cut the married couples allowance, but froze child benefit and increased taxes.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South also talked about the £8 billion worth of "adjustments", which seems to be more Conservative spin for cuts, that a future Conservative Government would make to our spending plans. We do not accept the £8 billion figure simply because we are working from the figures given by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) in a press notice that he issued last summer. The notice described a cuts guarantee of £16 billion, which would entail a £25 million public expenditure reduction for every constituency in the country, massively hitting schools, hospitals and other services.

Mr. Edward Davey: I am intervening to try to be helpful to the Minister. The mass unemployment of the 1980s over which the then Conservative Government presided caused the greatest damage to the fight against child poverty. If the Government have achieved only one thing by adopting the Liberal Democrats' policy of an independent central bank, thus ensuring stable economic growth, it has been to reduce unemployment by 1 million. That has constituted the Government's most effective attack on child poverty. I therefore congratulate them on being sensible enough to adopt Liberal Democrat policies.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister responds to that, I point out that there is a grave danger of this debate developing into a general economics debate. Will the Minister and all other hon. Members please focus on new clause 2?

Miss Johnson: I shall certainly do my best to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I believe that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has made a valuable point about the Government's contribution in getting people into work and making work pay. Both of those achievements have made very valuable contributions. I am puzzled by Liberal Democrat Members' lack of support for the new deal, which has certainly played a crucial role in cutting unemployment and addressing the issue of child poverty.
I should like finally to outline the Government's record on those issues. Families with children will be on average £1,000 a year better off from all the measures introduced in this Parliament. A family with two children now faces the lowest tax burden since 1972. A single-earner family on average earnings of £25,000 a year with two young children will be £520 a year better off, and a single-earner family on half average earnings of £12,700 a year with two young children will be £3,000 a year better off. A family on income support with two young children will be £1,670 a year better off.
We have addressed the issue of child poverty in all those ways. We have also, as I said, focused some of those resources specifically on under-fives. We must not forget what we have done to address the issue, including introducing the working families tax credit — which, on average, compared with the previous family credit system, is worth £35 a week more. By such measures, we have succeeded in lifting 1.2 million children out of poverty.
The policies being advocated by the hon. Member for Croydon, South are set within the context of an absence of a fiscal framework and fiscal rules. He does not answer the question of where the spending cuts that are necessary to fund tax cuts will fall or address the issue of continuing economic stability. We are able to support families and children because of economic stability and the fact that we have so many more people in work and have cut unemployment to its lowest levels for many years.
I therefore urge the House to reject new clause 2.

Mr. Ottaway: In her final remarks, the Minister said that new clause 2 was set outside any framework and any rules, but it is set within the context of the Government's own framework and rules. As I said at the beginning of the debate, the new clause is part of an £8 billion tax reduction package. There has been much childish merriment among Labour Members about the nature of that £8 billion, but I make it clear that the Government's plans as outlined in the Red Book are to increase public expenditure by £72 billion by 2003–04. A future Conservative Government would increase spending by £64 billion by 2003–04, thereby creating the £8 billion difference.
To prevent the Minister from continually repeating the mistaken figure of £16 billion over the next four weeks, after the debate I shall give her the precise figures supporting the £8 billion figure. That is what we stand on, and that is what we intend to do. There is no need for her to repeat the figure of £16 billion again, because that figure is wrong.
The most important thing that has happened today is that the Minister has singularly failed to say why this proposal, designed to help the children most in need of assistance, the under- fives, should not be accepted. She says that she stands on her record, and that the Government are doing what they can to help that group of children. That is complacent, inadequate and unacceptable. If we were not working to a timetable motion I would seek to divide the House. but time is short and there are other new clauses to be debated. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

EXEMPTION FROM CAPITAL GAINS TAX

'—. In section 271(1) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (concerning exemption from CGT) after subsection (j) insert—
(k) any gain accruing to a UK resident company, or to a non-resident company chargeable to UK corporation tax under section 10 of this Act, in respect of the disposal of a substantial shareholding in a trading company or a member of a trading group. For the purposes of this subsection a substantial shareholding is a shareholding of 20% or more held for a period of a year or more.".'.—[Mr. Flight.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Flight: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take new clause 4—Substantial shareholdings: deferral of capital gains tax—

`—In section 155 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (concerning classes of assets for roll-over relief) Class 9, after Head B, insert new subsection.

Substantial shareholdings in trading companies or members of a trading group. For the purposes of this section, a substantial shareholding is a shareholding of 20 per cent. or more held for a period of a year or more.".'.

Mr. Flight: The two new clauses would provide alternative measures to complete the correction of the major mistake in the Government's original Budget proposals last year. The House will remember that the Chancellor came to the House with proposals to tax the offshore mixing companies used by multinationals based in Britain.
The original proposals would have made Britain one of the most unattractive places for multinationals to be based, whereas it has been, after Holland and the United States, one of the most attractive. They would have led, in due course, to companies setting up elsewhere and moving abroad, causing jobs and tax revenue to be lost.
Fortunately, after many—not only the Opposition but businesses and accountants—had spoken out against the proposals, the Government were forced to accept the objections and change their proposals. Last year's Finance Act corrected the error by introducing the practical and sensible arrangements for onshore pooling.

Dawn Primarolo: Did the hon. Gentleman agree with the mechanism of offshore pooling and the mixer companies that were used as holding companies to avoid tax in this country?

Mr. Flight: The Paymaster General is well aware that international businesses have been in discussion with the Inland Revenue for more than a year—quite sensibly, if that is what they thought they had achieved—to bring about onshore pooling arrangements. because they did not like having to use offshore mixers to achieve fair tax rates on their international earnings.
It was the need for onshore pooling arrangements, which did not then exist, that led to the use of offshore mixers. That usage was established and well known by the Revenue. It was a pity that when the issue was moving towards being satisfactorily resolved, the original Budget proposals did not pick up on that, but tried to be clever. Fortunately, the Government were eventually persuaded to see the light and change their line.

Dawn Primarolo: That was not the question that I asked the hon. Gentleman; I asked whether he was in favour of the use of mixer companies for offshore pooling. His party was in power for 18 years, and did nothing about it. Which does he favour: offshore mixing, which his Government presided over, or onshore mixing, which this Government have introduced?

Mr. Flight: The Paymaster General, who has played her role in this Government extremely competently, must surely accept that they have now been in power for four years, that we are coming up to another general election,

and that what happened in the past is out of date. My answer is that probably, provided that the Government accept new clause 3 or 4, onshore pooling in its entirety is more desirable, because it is overt and within the control of the UK Government and tax authorities.
7.45 pm
The question of how to deal with the tax position of multinational companies has emerged over the years. There were far fewer multinational companies 20 years ago, and the idea of Britain being an important base for multinational companies has developed dramatically over the past 10 or 20 years.

Dawn Primarolo: rose—

Mr. Flight: If the hon. Lady is going to ask me why the Conservative Government did not introduce onshore pooling as an alternative to offshore mixers, my answer is that first, I personally was not a Member of the House at that time. and secondly, that we are now dealing with the present, not the past.

Dawn Primarolo: I entirely accept that Opposition Members were not brought up, as I was, to believe that we are all responsible for our past as well as for our present—[Interruption.] I am perfectly prepared to say that; it would appear that my past is scrutinised quite a lot by hon. Gentlemen.
The hon. Gentleman has Made the Government's  for us, because he has just said that in more than 18 years, the previous Government failed to see or act on the development of the new economy, and so did nothing about offshore pooling, which became an ever increasing problem. They did nothing about deferral or exemption, either. Perhaps he will tell us why.

Mr. Flight: The Paymaster General is being unnecessarily and rather ineffectively aggressive, in comparison with her normal behaviour. The issue is simple. The practice of using offshore mixers developed with the knowledge—indeed, to some extent with the collaboration—of the Inland Revenue over the past 10 years or so. However, its time had come: it was time to make a change and bring the arrangements onshore.
The fruits of the offshore mixers were beneficial to the United Kingdom, because they enabled us to collar much of the multinational capital business. They therefore acted in the national interest. However, the time had come to move the activity onshore. The two new clauses would complete that process fairly, and along the lines that, as I am sure the Paymaster General would be forced to agree, the Government undertook to follow during the debates on the Finance Bill last year.
Indeed, the hon. Lady herself has admitted that the Government have been consulting on the issue that the two new clauses address almost since that Finance Bill became the Finance Act last summer. I repeat that if they wish to achieve both fairness and a continuing competitive environment for multinational holding companies in the UK, the Government need choose only one of the two new clauses. The provisions are needed because holding companies will have to reshape themselves into a flatter structure than has typically prevailed under the old offshore mixer arrangements.
They will be moving from what was in effect a double tax relief regime to the new onshore pooling arrangements, under which the relevant holding company in the UK will be required to hold the international subsidiaries directly. New clause 3 would provide the route of exemption from capital gains tax when such a UK-based holding company reorganises its subsidiaries. In essence, it would make what had been a subsidiary of a subsidiary a direct subsidiary of the holding company. That probably represents the simplest and fairest solution to the problem, but we have also put forward an alternative in new clause 4, which would provide roll-over relief.
The amelioration of the tax position resulting from the Government's required restructuring from offshore to onshore pooling was promised by the Government as part of their package on double tax relief and controlled foreign companies. The Paymaster General herself has advised that the Government continue to consult on the matter. I suggest that it is now time to act, because the Government have had a year to consult on that important technical matter in the national interest. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) raised the issue in discussing clause 79 in Committee and she, while not promising to act, said:
The Government are consulting on changes to the tax on gains made by companies and disposals of substantial share holdings with a view to introducing either a deferral or an exemption."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 May 2001; c. 160.]
The new clauses modestly request that the Paymaster General make a decision and tidy up the loose ends in the national interest and to complete the new arrangements for multinationals. If she chooses not to accept either new clause, I hope that she will give a firm undertaking that the issue will be addressed. A year's consultation is surely sufficient.

Dawn Primarolo: I am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman. It will not surprise him to learn that should he press his new clauses to a Division, I shall ask my hon. Friends to oppose them. In all truth, he knows why that is a reasonable position in what is a complex area of taxation. I am sure that he will also accept that the Government, having set such a splendid record in the past four years in consultation on, and reform of, those complex areas, are aware that the question of whether deferral or exemption should be used is of considerable interest to business. We must ensure that our proposals are relevant to businesses today and will stand the test of time in a competitive and important sector of the economy.
I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that his Government failed to address any of the issues before us. Organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry pressed for changes to be considered, but the previous Government failed to act. I understand their reluctance to act on a highly complicated area of taxation, but it is simply not true that this Government have failed to deal with the issue. Nor was it reasonable to expect that the Government should deal with it at the same time as the changes to double taxation relief. The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Finance Bill Committee last year as he was this, and he will know well that the double taxation relief changes were enormously complex and challenging,

not only for Inland Revenue officials and businesses advising them, but for Members of Parliament. I cannot accept that at the same time as dealing with that highly complex legislation. we should have discussed a pick-and-mix choice between deferral and exemption.
Matters have moved on, to the considerable benefit of business, since the two issues of double taxation and deferral were linked in May 2000. In June 2000, the Government announced the double taxation rules allowing the onshore pooling that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The pre-Budget report raised the possibility of an exemption as an alternative to a deferral of capital gains tax on the disposal of substantial share holdings. Businesses are very interested in that alternative, but they wish to see more work done on it.
The Government have made it clear, as I said on Second Reading, that we will introduce the changes in the 2002 Finance Bill. That is not that long to wait.

Mr. Flight: On a technical matter, will that timetable of dealing with the outstanding issue in the 2002 Finance Bill fit with the period required for restructuring to onshore pooling? If it does, and companies will not be left for a year in no man's land, that will be a satisfactory solution.

Dawn Primarolo: I rely on representations made to the Government in the consultation, but I am not aware that any company has claimed that its transactions will be affected and that the issue needs to be dealt with immediately. Businesses are saying that they want further consultation. Technical notes are being discussed in considerable detail. and the pre-Budget report made it clear that we are considering deferral or something better. The benefits of deferral have not been doubted.
The new clauses would encourage the Government to make legislation in haste. The hon. Gentleman wants us to pick one of his options, say, "That'll do", and add it to the Bill. I know that if we did, next year he would criticise the Government for poor drafting, even if it was his drafting. The matter is proceeding and we want to legislate in 2002, but we also want to ensure, through consultation with business, that our proposals will be a good fit now and help companies as well as standing the test of time. He will agree that our proposals must ensure, for example, that intellectual property rights are held here in the UK and that this is the most competitive place for businesses to be located, with the best environment for them to develop. If the hon. Gentleman agrees with those objectives, he should withdraw the new clause and await the outcome of consultation with business—something that he frequently implores the Government to do. In that way, we will achieve an agreed way forward, rather than a quick fix this year that will not work.

8pm

Mr. Flight: I briefly take issue with two things that the Paymaster General said at the beginning of her remarks. First, she boasted of the Government's splendid record of consultation with business on this matter, but I remind her of the outrage felt by business when the original proposals were introduced by the Chancellor. They caused business's love affair with the Labour party to fall apart. As I commented earlier, it is fortunate for the good of the country that the Government have changed their mind.
Secondly, the Paymaster General is not taking the point that, in the past, offshore mixers worked. They enabled the UK to do extremely well in the multinational headquarters business. The time had come for something better, but it was not the case that a nagging problem had not been addressed.
However, I was glad to hear the Paymaster General's response. I may have missed something in one of the earlier debates on this matter, but the seemed to say a little more than she did in Committee She did not respond completely to my main point—that businesses will have to restructure to move from offshore mixers to onshore pooling and that they must not be put in a void for a year while they wait for the issue to be resolved—but she went some way towards providing an answer to it.
The next Conservative Government will get on and deal with the matter. If that does not happen, the Paymaster General has promised that it will be dealt with in next year's Finance Bill. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REBATES SCHEME

'(1) The Treasury may by order made by statutory instrument introduce a scheme of rebates to those persons charged with the aggregates levy and who have employed environmental protection measures in the process of commercial exploitation of aggregate;

(2) Environmental protection measures in this part are those measures which the Secretary of State shall by order determine to be in the interests of protecting or enhancing the environment;

(3) No rebate under this scheme shall be made unless the environmental protection measures:

(a) relate directly to the process of commercial exploitation of aggregate; and

(b) shall have been verified and certified by an external body prescribed for that purpose by the Secretary of State;

(4) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall not be made without prior consultation with those persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of those having an interest in:

(i) the commercial exploitation of aggregate;

(ii) the protection of the natural environment;

(iii) the local communities affected.

(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of the House of Commons.'.—[Mr. David Heath.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Heath: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 1, in clause 16, page 12, leave out from line 18 to end of line 8 on page 41.
No. 3, in page 12, line 37, at end insert—
'(7) The provisions of this section shall cease to have effect on 5 April 2004 unless the Treasury makes provision by order made by statutory instrument for its continuation.
(8) The Treasury shall not make an order under subsection (7) above unless a draft of the order has bean laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of the House of Commons.'.
No. 2, in schedule 4, page 102, leave out from line 18 to end of line 17 on page 143.

Mr. Heath: Returning to the aggregates tax seems like revisiting an old friend. The Financial Secretary will recall that I tabled an amendment and the new clause in Committee. They were connected: the amendment would have required the Government not to introduce the aggregates tax until they had introduced a rebate scheme, while the new clause would permit the Government to apply that rebate scheme to companies subject to the levy.
I shall not waste the House's time going over the arguments that I adduced in Committee. To my mind, they still hold true. I still believe that there is a serious design fault in the Government's proposals that will do enormous damage to the quarrying sector and to related industries, such as the concrete industry. Firms in my constituency, for example, will not benefit from the proposals.
The question before the House today is whether there should be a rebate scheme at all. What is the purpose behind the Government's proposed aggregates levy? We have heard the Government's justifications for it. The Budget 2000 statement said that the tax would generate
reductions in noise, dust, visual intrusion, damage to wildlife habitats and other environmental impacts.
Elsewhere, the Treasury stated in evidence that
the encouragement of recycling is the main tax purpose.
We have heard also that the tax would reflect the environmental cost of quarrying.
If the tax did that, it would be fine. However, I live in a quarrying area on the edge of the Mendips, and I know that it is far from obvious that the tax will bring with it any of the predicted benefits. It is also hard to see how it will improve the local environment.
The tax could easily improve local environments if there were a direct link between the performance of the quarrying companies in terms of what they do to protect or enhance the local environment and the protection of environmental amenities enjoyed by local residents. At present, residents suffer from all the ills that the Government cite as factors behind the introduction of the tax. The new clause would provide the appropriate mechanism to make the tax work. It would institute a system of rebate against the aggregates levy for companies prepared to take the necessary steps with regard to their processes, or to the infrastructure by which they quarry stone or transport it away. The new clause would reward that endeavour.
The Government's problem is that, without a rebate system, the tax will not achieve its stated objectives. That point has been made many times, in the House and outside it. Industry representatives and independent commentators share an opinion on this matter. The classic quotation is from Professor David Pearce, who is something of a guru when it comes to environmental taxes. I remember discussing his proposals in connection with the original Environmental Protection Act 1990. Mr. Chris Patten was Secretary of State for the Environment in the then Conservative Government, and he toyed with many of David Pearce's ideas, but did not bring many of them to fruition.
In July 1999, Professor Pearce conducted the only independent research into the proposal, and said that
we conclude that an aggregates tax is an extremely inefficient way to try and secure an environmental target.


That was his verdict, but it is not the end of the story. A rebate scheme would deal directly with the problems. New clause 5 covers the salient points. It provides that the Treasury could bring forward a statutory instrument to introduce the rebate scheme, but does not prescribe the exact form of that order. If the process turns out to be difficult, as the Financial Secretary has claimed, the new clause would permit time for the task to be accomplished. In Committee, I argued that the matter was urgent, but the urgency argument is not relevant to the new clause.
The new clause does not suggest that there should be a blank cheque for the companies involved; instead, it provides that the Secretary of State would determine the environmental measures to be taken. In other words, the Secretary of State would compile the tariff list of suggested measures that could and should be put in place, which would then be set against an audit of what had been done.
The new clause would link environmental protection measures to the process of commercial exploitation of aggregates, and tie them to the location of the quarrying. A criticism strongly voiced in my part of Somerset, and repeated in Leicestershire, Derbyshire and the other main quarrying areas, is that people do not see how they would benefit if an aggregates tax were introduced. They fear that the benefit would apply a lot further away, and not locally.
The new clause would also require that any benefit
should be verified and certified by an external body prescribed for that purpose
by the Secretary of State. Again, it would not allow companies merely to claim to have done something: any action would have to be proved before the rebate came into effect.
That seems a sensible way forward. I cannot see that the Government would wish to produce any argument against that proposition, other than that it does not use their wording. If they intend to introduce a rebate scheme in the future—I sincerely hope that they do, and there is evidence that at least one other Department is keen on it—the new clause would provide them with a legal basis for doing so without bringing back to the House further primary legislation in the form of provisions included in a Finance Act or a separate Bill which would delay the process and make matters more difficult.
Even if the Government are not prepared to accept the words that I suggest, I hope that they will at least give a clear indication that they are committed to doing what they said they wanted to do and what they know they have to do to make the aggregates levy a genuine environmental tax rather than an imposition on the industry which has no direct environmental benefit and is to the detriment of the industry's commercial interests and competitiveness. The quarrying industry and those who are concerned about the local environment in the areas where quarrying takes place are waiting to hear from the Government a clear commitment that they intend to introduce this scheme and that it is being done as a matter of urgency. It would be absurd to introduce the aggregates levy without the only element that provides for local environmental benefit.

Mr. Letwin: First, let me say a few words first about the proposition of the hon. Member for Somerton and

Frome (Mr. Heath). For reasons that I will come to, I am not—as the hon. Gentleman and others may know from the Committee stage and Second Reading—a great fan of this tax. However the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is difficult to dispute.
The Financial Secretary has said on numerous occasions that he will continue discussions with the industry about the possibility of introducing an exemption scheme. If he is so minded, it must be true, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, that it would be convenient to avoid tile necessity for subsequent primary legislation. Indeed, it may be more than merely convenient—it may be necessary for the survival of large parts of the industry that it be possible to introduce the exemption scheme without the need for the laborious process of primary legislation.
We ought to hear today—although I harbour a doubt that we will—that the Financial Secretary has at last capitulated to the demands for at the very least an enabling clause of the kind proposed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. The Financial Secretary said in Committee not a day or two ago that an enabling clause did not commit the Government to very much. That is true. The resistance that the Government have so far displayed towards an enabling clause, however, suggests that they are not so convinced as they make out and that they will eventually introduce an exemption scheme. That would be lamentable I hope that the expectations that I have voiced will be shown to be false and that the Financial Secretary will accept the hon. Gentleman's new clause.
As we have said repeatedly during the passage of the Bill and those parts of it relating to the aggregates levy, even with the exemption scheme, we strongly oppose the introduction of this new stealth tax. That is why we have tabled amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 2. At this point, I should declare an interest the nature of which has always eluded me, but which might exist.
8.15 pm
I am clear that there is a deficiency in the tax, even in the rational version of it entailing the hon. Gentleman's proposed exemption clause and regulations that provide for exemption. That version is rational because it might at least achieve the environmental effects that the tax purportedly seeks to achieve. In that, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Our objection is to the triadic rhythm, which runs like this: the Government announce a tax, in the nature of a fine, for a particular segment of British industry. The second step is that the Government announce that people who behave well will not be subject to the fine. The third step is that the Government institute officials, in a more or less arbitrary fashion, to negotiate with particular parties in the industry sector about whether they are sufficiently good boys not to pay the fine.
That is not how to govern the country. We do not believe that there should be pre-ordained fines or that officials should be put in the position of judges, seeking to determine whether particular firms have behaved sufficiently like good boys or girls to avoid such fines. I grant that it may be effective—in that, I agree with the hon. Gentleman—but I do not think that it is proper. It is not the right way in which to go about achieving the aim.
If the aim is essentially regulatory, let the device be essentially regulatory. If the aim is to create a market or charging system, let the device be a charging system of tradeable permits or the like. If the aim is to create an economic incentive, let it be an incentive and not a penalty. None of those devices is the same as a fine, which people can avoid if they behave well in the judgment of some official. That is a route, not to immediate disaster, but gradually, by degrees, to an arbitrariness in government which I think even Labour Members will come to regret.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's discourse with interest. Would he include in the list of avenues that might be considered the price mechanism, which applies in this case? I should have thought that, on reflection, he would agree that there could be an important role for the price mechanism in achieving environmentally beneficial results.

Mr. Letwin: I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I should like briefly to address the really interesting issue raised by the Financial Secretary. I suspect that all three parties are at one in believing that economic incentives, including pricing mechanisms, are in some circumstances appropriate for achieving desirable environmental effects. The problem about this tax, and particularly in relation to the way in which it is being implemented, is that it is not a pricing mechanism, because the elasticity at the other end—the supply elasticity—does not exist.
The tax will not reduce the propensity of people who are building buildings to use less that is made with aggregates, because that cannot be done. If there were a serious elasticity of building, the tax would slightly reduce the amount of building in the United Kingdom. I judge the effect to be minimal, however. The Financial Secretary has never brought forward an elasticity study suggesting anything to the contrary. Cross-elasticities, on the other hand, may be considerable, and I shall come to that.
The problem about the tax is that what elasticity effect it has is at the wrong end. It will drive out domestic aggregates production in favour of imported aggregates production, in the form of asphalt arid pre-cast concrete. It will destroy British jobs, and in that, it will indeed be a price signal. However, that is not the price signal that the Financial Secretary wants to send, and the tax, in its present form, will have no other serious effect. So although we agree with the hon. Gentleman about the principle, he has unfortunately not translated that principle into practice in this instance.
That leads me directly to the essential point that I want to make tonight. I do not want to rehearse at length all the arguments that we made on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House about this tax; that would be tedious. I do want to place on the record and put in the mind of the Financial Secretary, who has exhibited a tendency to think about these things and to reach conclusions after debates, a series of answers to his response to a point that I made in the Committee of the whole House.
I argued in the Committee, as l had on Second Reading, that the effect of the tax would be seriously to displace employment from this country to southern Ireland and the

northern continental shelf. The Financial Secretary said—I know from experience that when he says these things, he means them—that he did not believe that proposition. He said that he did not believe that the £1.60 a tonne of tax, even with the differential that it created with the zero tax rate in southern Ireland or the 5p tax rate in France, would be sufficient to offset the transport cost disadvantage of displacing production to those locations outside the United Kingdom.
To be absolutely fair to the Financial Secretary, because this is no party political game and I want to try to get this straight, I believe that he made that argument particularly about northern Europe—the northern continent. He was less firm about southern Ireland. I believe that he did take on board the issue in relation to southern and Northern Ireland.
I stress here that, essentially, we are dealing with the commodities that are made of aggregates, as opposed to the aggregates themselves. The aggregates themselves are correctly subject to tax if imported, just as if produced domestically.
I have looked into that assertion by the Financial Secretary since those debates in the Committee of the whole House, and I have consulted the industry. To say that I have done so widely would be hyperbole. I have consulted a number of people in the industry—among the small producers and the larger producers—who are very well informed, to try to get a sense of whether there is a serious problem of differentials. I want to try to identify briefly why I believe that there is a very serious problem of differentials.
Eight tenths of this argument depends on understanding that the £1.60 is not the end of the story. The first part of that part of the argument stems from the fact that £ 1.60 a tonne is a true assessment of the average cost of the tax to the producer, but, as we have had occasion to note in our rather lengthy debates about this matter—although not, alas, sufficiently lengthy in some cases—the production of aggregates is a highly complex business in the sense that many things are being produced simultaneously, some of which are the intended product and some of which are by-products. The Financial Secretary is as familiar with that reality as we are.
It is impossible to sell by-products and low-grade waste—in Committee, we had a long disquisition about dust—at full price. They cannot be sold at much above the price at which they are currently sold. That is what I am told by both sides of the industry—the aggregate producers and the construction industry. As a result, the average cost of production of the high-grade material will go up by more than £1.60 a tonne, because a hefty part of the tax, which would otherwise be borne by the by-products and will be chargeable to the by-products, will have to be loaded on to the price of the primary products. That, I suspect, is an inescapable conclusion.

Mr. David Heath: indicated assent.

Mr. Letwin: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman, who knows a great deal about the industry—much more than I do—gives his assent to that proposition. I shall be very surprised if the Financial Secretary can produce any evidence that those assertions, which I believe to have been given to me in good faith by both sides of the industry, are false. The estimates that I have been given vary, but they
centred around a 50 per cent. uplift. I believe that the effective rate of tax on the primary products will be not £1.60 but about £2.40.
Next we have to add the increased costs of administration. I do not want to exaggerate the case, because I want to make a genuinely robust case rather than a political statement. I do not know the increased cost of administration, but I am sure that the Financial Secretary will acknowledge that it will be more than zero. Dealing with a new tax and keeping the records required for it, especially in the case of—if I may be permitted a pun— the disaggregations required to deal with an aggregates tax that is to be levied on a series of commodities, some of which are exempt and some of which are not, with some that are exempt being produced at the same time as some that are non-exempt, making it difficult to disentangle one from another, is bound to occasion a significant increase in administrative costs for producers.
I have been given various estimates, and I do not know how reliable they are. I am inclined to think that 10p to 20p a tonne is a reasonable estimate of additional administrative costs. If I take the lower end of that scale, at about 10p, that takes us up to about £2.50 a tonne—£1.80 plus the uplift of 80p for the primary products, plus the 10p.
Taxes are collected by Customs and Excise with unvarying efficiency. [Interruption.] I say that with a degree of irony, in the sense that it is not always the case that Customs and Excise collects the right amount and it is not always the case that all our constituents feel that they are properly treated, but taxes are collected with unvarying efficiency in the sense that Customs and Excise always swoops early. This is not a party political point, although the Chancellor has certainly taken policy steps to advance tax receipts in many respects, including corporation tax. This is a point about administration under all Governments.
Customs and Excise quite properly sees it as its duty to protect the Revenue, so it swoops early. It looks for the money as soon as possible. That has a cash-flow effect on the firms that produce the goods, because the goods are not always sold quickly, and the definitions of commercial exploitation in the relevant sections of the Bill are, as we have had reason to note in lengthy discussion, such that one need not have sold the item to be liable to the tax. There will be a cash-flow effect. I do not know what it will be. I have taken estimates, and it sounds as though about 10p a tonne would not be an unreasonable estimate. That gets us to £2.60.
Undoubtedly, the administrative burden and the price increase will together conspire to accelerate the process of consolidation in the industry. To some degree that may be a good thing; for many producers it will be a bad thing. It is clear that it will tend to concentrate production in fewer locations. The Financial Secretary might argue that the tax is thereby having an effect, but one thing is sure: that that will tend to raise internal transport costs. I do not know the amount, but it has been suggested to me that it might be as high as 75p or as low as 50p. I will take the lower estimate and add 50p. We now have the following: £1.60 plus 80p equals £2.40; £2.40 plus 10p equals £2.50; £2.50 plus 1Op equals £2.60; £2.60 plus 50p equals £3.10.
I am told that a differential of £3.10 is vastly greater than the transport cost differential implied by importing pre-cast concrete from northern Europe. If the Financial Secretary has figures to the contrary, we shall be most interested to hear them. Such a differential will clearly hugely exceed the transport costs from southern Ireland. If that were not the case, my estimate of the transport costs increase owing to consolidation in the industry would, clearly, also be too low, but I am told that moving pre-cast concrete by ship is an efficient method of transport—not, of course, one that would be applicable to the use of such concrete deep in Wiltshire, but perfectly applicable on the south coast and, indeed, through the London docks, in London.
8.30 pm
In other words, a large part of the construction industry in the United Kingdom could be serviced by pre-cast concrete from the northem ports of Europe at a far lower transport cost than would be involved because of the more than £3 differential that has been identified. That is a serious problem, but we have yet to hear from the Financial Secretary any set of equivalent figures, or disputations of those figures, that would allay our fears. We have not invented those fears; they have been expressed by the industry, which has, in principle, no reason to invent them If it were true that the displacement of jobs and business would not occur, why should the industry care about the tax; it would merely pass it on to a virtually inelastic buyer—the construction industry? House occupiers and people trying to build business premises might object, but I have not the slightest idea why the industry would invent those figures, so there must be some truth in them.
Given all the arguments of principle that we have discussed at length and rehearsed again today and given the problems of implementation and the way in which the aggregates tax has been proposed in the Bill—for example, the failure to produce an exemption clause such as that suggested by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome—I am driven to the conclusion that there is a failure in the Government's factual analysis; they have not recognised that the differential will have a serious effect on thousands of jobs in the United Kingdom, and that needs to be addressed urgently.

Mr. Timms: I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's points in detail in a moment, but before he completes his speech, will he confirm that it would be the intention of an incoming Conservative Government not to introduce the 0.1 percentage point reduction in employers' national insurance contributions that balances the revenue that we expect to receive from the aggregates levy?

Mr. Letwin: Yes, that is absolutely correct. The intention of an incoming Conservative Administration will be not to introduce the entire package, but to seek to negotiate with the industry the very kinds of environmental improvement that were so near to completion when some siren voice got at the Prime Minister and managed to reverse the trend of Government thinking, pushing them back into introducing an aggregates tax. We want to have a serious and adult discussion with the industry about how


the environmental improvements can be achieved without this tax, which, of course, implies without the NIC reductions.

Mr. David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's analysis of the projected extra costs is admirably rigorous, but does he accept that those figures are, by their very nature, tentative? The British Aggregates Association has come up with a figure of £ 4.35, whereas his is £3 or so. Is it not equally possible that the Government's approach, with the figure being very much at the low end of the spectrum, is likely to represent the eventual outcome? If it did not, could not a future Government respond by regulation?

Mr. Letwin: Well, that is possible. Of course there is room for uncertainty. I have also received the British Aggregates Association figures. I have consciously chosen the lower end of the estimates that we have received so that I cannot be accused of inventing figures for effect. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor I—and nor, and this is my problem, the Financial Secretary—knows what the exact figure is. If it is anything like any of the figures discussed by the industry, it is sufficient to outweigh the transport costs. That is the problem.
I may be wrong, but I do not understand how that problem can be cured within the structure of the tax. If that cannot be done and we all wait up three, four or five years from now and 5,000, 7,500 or 10,000 jobs—the estimates vary—have disappeared as a result, it will be too late; it will be impossible to re-create those jobs in the United Kingdom for years to Come. We have a serious problem: the Government do not have the factual basis on which to be confident that the tax will not have those dire effects. That is why the House should accept the amendments tabled by Conservative Members.

Mr. Timms: As we have heard, under new clause 5, moved by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), a rebate would be allowed from the aggregates levy for so-called green quarries, and the rebate would be introduced by secondary legislation. We debated a very similar new clause in Committee yesterday. It was moved by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who is well able to look after himself on such occasions, but he withdrew it on the basis of the assurances that I was able to give Him. Of course, I am happy to repeat those assurances today. I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome agrees that his hon. Friend the Member for Gordon was right to withdraw his new clause after yesterday's debate in Committee.
I remind the House that the aggregates levy as set out in the Bill will have important and significant environmental benefits. It will do so by ensuring that the price of aggregates reflects the environmental cost of obtaining them—using a straightforward price mechanism for an environmentally beneficial end. That is a mechanism that the Liberal Democrat party well understands; it would thus be mistaken for the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome to suggest that the price mechanism will have no effect. There certainly will be an effect. I stress that point, because it is at the heart of the environmental benefit that we expect from the introduction of the aggregates levy.
Moreover, the package also includes the £35 million sustainability fund that will be available to be applied directly in communities that are affected by quarrying, to

help to deal with some of the environmental problems caused by quarrying. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there was no direct environmental benefit from the package is mistaken. In those two specific respects, there will be clear environmental benefits from the levy. I again draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the sustainability fund. That important measure will benefit communities that are affected by quarrying, such as the one in which he lives.
We announced in the Budget that we are attracted to the idea of differential rates of aggregates levy for green quarries. We are exploring with a variety of interested parties options on how that might be achieved, but as I have pointed out several times, significant practical problems remain—not least the definition of a green quarry. We need to know how those issues can be overcome in a practicable and workable way before we introduce legislation to give effect to that idea. When we have a workable scheme, we shall legislate.
The new clause is guesswork. I suggest to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that the scheme would need to take into account factors that are not referred to in the new clause, which is couched in terms of environmental protection measures being taken. However, other considerations might need to be taken into account. It is possible, for example, that the location of a quarry might have an impact on the extent of its environmental friendliness. I should certainly not want to exclude that possibility, as the new clause does. As I think that the hon. Member for Gordon acknowledged yesterday, during our debate in Committee on exactly the same proposal, nothing is to be gained in the meantime by introducing legislation that may well turn out not to be quite right when we have resolved the way forward—[Interruption.]
I give way to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin).

Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for giving way, although I was actually chuntering from a sedentary position. However, I will ask him a question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should listen to a tape recording of his own remarks. Is he aware of just how "Yes, Ministerish" he sounds? If I had been the official charged with inventing every reason that I could think of—including reasons that I could barely think of—for rejecting the new clause, I could certainly not have come up with a better list than the one he has provided.

Mr. Timms: It would be classic "Yes, Minister" to introduce a new clause to do something when we do not quite know what we are trying to achieve. That would be a serious mistake and I could not support such a proposal. As I pointed out in yesterday's debate, the new clause sets out three groups which should be consulted. I can again assure hon. Members that we shall indeed consult representatives from all three of those groups.

Mr. Edward Davey: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for giving way, especially as I was unable to be in the Chamber for all of the debate on the new clause. Will he confirm that the sustainability fund, which will produce the environmental improvements referred to in the new clause, is an intrinsic part of the levy? If he can


confirm that, will he explain why he is going ahead with the levy even though he has not sorted out the sustainability fund?

Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman is confused. The sustainability levy is part of the package as it stands. It will have an initial value of £35 million and we are consulting on precisely how the fund will be applied and to what categories of use it will be put. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken: the fund will be in place from the introduction of the levy in April next year and does not depend on any of the mechanisms mentioned in the new clause.

Mr. David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend confirm whether he is to consult the British Precast Concrete Federation, which makes a very powerful case in favour of the pre-cast concrete industry being treated in same way as the clay, silica sand and cement industries, all of which will not be covered by the aggregates tax?

Mr. Timms: I confirm that I have in the past week met representatives of the British Precast Concrete Federation. We had a useful discussion. We are consulting widely on the measures, as we always do.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 propose abolition of the levy. The Committee of the whole House considered that matter at the start of Committee stage and took a clear view that the aggregates levy should be in the Bill. I have no doubt that that view will, rightly, be repeated today. The levy is being introduced to address the significant environmental costs associated with quarrying and it will bring about environmental benefits, as I have described. The introduction of the levy and the associated cut in employers national insurance contributions will contribute to the Government's strategy, consistently applied, of shifting the burden of taxation from good things, such as employment, to bad things, such as environmental damage. That was the intention we set out in our 1997 statement of intent on environmental taxation and it is the approach that we have taken.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dorset for confirming that a Conservative Government would not proceed with the reduction in employers national insurance contributions. We have also heard that the Conservatives would reverse the reduction in employers national insurance contributions associated with the climate change levy—0.3 per cent. in that case. In addition, the hon. Gentleman has made more clear the Conservatives' intentions regarding the 0.2 per cent. reduction in employers national insurance contributions associated with the landfill tax. I do not know precisely why the Conservatives want to pile up taxation on employment, but I am certain that our approach of shifting the burden of taxation away from employment is the right one. We shall continue to pursue it.
The levy will be revenue neutral for the Exchequer because all of the proceeds will be recycled through the reduction in employers national insurance contributions and the £35 million sustainability fund that will help to develop alternatives to primary aggregates extraction and help to redress the local impact of quarrying in communities that are affected by it.

Mr. Letwin: Will the Financial Secretary give now the undertaking that he refused to give earlier: that if his

Government are fortunate enough to be re-elected, each and any subsequent increase in the aggregates levy will be accompanied by an equal and opposite reduction in national insurance contributions or some other tax?

Mr. Timms: I do not want to discomfit the hon. Gentleman, but in our enjoyable debate on the subject in the Standing Committee yesterday, he made a lengthy case against the landfill tax, saying that we were giving out more in the reduction in employers national insurance contributions than we were taking in through the landfill tax. He was simply wrong about that: the revenue from the landfill tax is s significantly less than—in fact, it is equivalent to about two thirds of—the revenue forgone through the reduction in employers national insurance contributions. The hon. Gentleman was mistaken in yesterday's debate and it is unwise of him to pursue that line of argument further today.

Mr. Letwin: rose—

Mr. Timms: No, I want make some progress—a couple of other points need to be made to complete the picture. It is possible to make greater use of recycled aggregates, as we discussed in earlier debates. They will be more attractive because the price of primary aggregates will include an additional cost that will not apply to them, and that will be beneficial.
8.45 pm
In my response to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicester shire (Mr. Taylor), I mentioned my discussions with manufacturers of pre-cast concrete blocks. The hon. Member for West Dorset made something of that. I do not believe that the prospect of significant imports from across the sea of pre-cast concrete blocks will be a serious problem. The industry did not suggest that. However, I accepted in an earlier debate that Northern Ireland might be a different case, and today I met the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and two representatives of the quarrying industry from Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Executive is also considering the problem, which we will continue to explore. The land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic means that the situation there is different.
As for concrete blocks from Norway or elsewhere in continental Europe, tile cost of transport is a sufficiently high hurdle for the 1 per cent. of pre-cast blocks that are imported not to change. Those are specialist products and they do not reflect the bulk of what is produced in the United Kingdom.

Dr. McCrea: Having listened to those representations, when will the Government determine what action to take to alleviate the problem faced by businesses in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Timms: I can only repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Foyle this morning: we will work with the Northern Ireland Executive and, if there is a strong case for us to act, we will do so. I cannot, however, say precisely when that will be.
I hope that the Horse will hold to its clear view on the issue and reject the amendment. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for West Dorset say that the


Conservative party would not implement the measure and, instead, would try to achieve a negotiated agreement with the industry. The Quarry Products Association and the Government invested much work in examining the prospects of a negotiated voluntary agreement. For several reasons, those discussions were not successful and the package that the QPA put to us for the Budget last year contained serious difficulties, not least the likelihood of falling foul of European law.
However, another reason for that lack of success was the great hostility of the British Aggregates Association, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire referred. I think I am right in saying that the BAA came into existence when a group of small quarries came together to object to the big quarrying companies formulating an agreement that did not benefit them. The hon. Member for West Dorset needs to be cautious before believing that a negotiated solution is possible.
The real question facing hon. Members is whether we face up to the need to address the environmental costs of quarrying. if the House decides—as I believe it will— that that is necessary, our proposal is the right way to proceed.

Mr. David Taylor: My hon. Friend is right to say that Leicestershire has a significant mineral extraction industry. Many small firms operate there. Does he believe that the implementation of the levy risks accelerating the industry trend towards a smaller number of larger quarries, with the extra haulage costs: and other problems that are associated with that?

Mr. Timms:: I have not seen any evidence of that, and none that I am aware of has been forthcoming. The way in which the industry responds to the levy is a matter for the industry.
Amendment No. 3 at least has the merit that the House has not already rejected it, but the environmental costs of aggregates extraction will not cease in April 2004. Therefore, there is no justification for limiting the life of the levy to that date.
For the reasons that I have set out, I hope that the House will reject the new clause and the amendments.

Mr. David Heath: I listened with incredulity to the Financial Secretary's response. His arguments became steadily more preposterous as he vent on. That might suggest that we have been right all along and that the impost has been cobbled together at short notice and is half thought through. That is why justifications for the levy are so lacking.

Mr. Timms: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. Will he at least acknowledge—as he did not in his opening remarks—that the sustainability fund and the £35 million that will be available will provide an opportunity to tackle some of the local quarrying issues that he referred to earlier?

Mr. Heath: I would do that if we knew what the sustainability fund will do. One of the arguments that the Financial Secretary adduced for not accepting the new clause was the fact that he did not yet know the precise detail of the environmental measures that it might encompass. Nevertheless, he is prepared to go ahead with

imposing a tax on the industry without knowing the precise details—indeed, any details—of the sustainability fund. That is extraordinary.
The only lacuna that the hon. Gentleman could identify in my remarks related to some sort of concept of a retrospective planning permission being applied by tax rebate, so that those quarries that happened to be in the wrong place would be taxed out of the market in favour of those that happened to be in the right place. It would be interesting to know the exact mechanism that he had in mind and how it would play in terms of European competition law and the Human Rights Act 1998.
The Government have been very clear about what they consider to be the principles of good environmental taxation. They include the fact that an economic instrument must deliver environmental gains cost effectively and must not threaten the competitiveness of UK business. All of us accept that there is an imbalance between the needs of the quarrying industry—the motive for which is to build our infrastructure—and the environmental effects of quarrying. Those of us who represent the areas involved and who have been involved in discussions for more years than we care to remember know that there is a difficult balance to reach. We certainly do not turn our face against the need to provide for economic and environmental instruments to achieve the best balance possible.
We simply say that a tax mechanism that fails to differentiate between environmentally sound and environmentally unsound operations is not such an instrument. Because the Government are going ahead without knowing what they will do, we can conclude only that the most important thing for them is appearing to be doing something that is of environmental benefit rather than actually doing something that is of environmental benefit to quarrying areas.
The most sensible thing that the Financial Secretary could have said was that he would take the tax away and return with it next year, when it has been properly designed and is in a correct form with a rebate system. We could then all agree that we had an economically and environmentally sound scheme. Instead, we have something which, frankly, is nonsense.
We are keen to discuss other groups of amendments in the limited time available—so, for that reason alone, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

EXTENSION OF CARRY BACK OF TRADING LOSSES

'(1) Section 393A Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (set-off of trading losses against profits of previous three years) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) below.

(2) In subsection (2), after "(2A)", and before "below", insert the words "and (2D)".

(3) After subsection (2C), insert the following new subsection—
quote"(2D) this subsection shall have effect in relation to any loss incurred by a company which is not large (as defined by SI 1998/3175 as subsequently amended)—

(a) as if in subsection (2) above, the words 'three years' were substituted for the words 'twelve months': and


(b) which is incurred in any accounting periods ending in the period beginning on 1 April 2000 and ending on or before 31 March 2003.".'.—[Mr. David Heath.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Heath: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 7—Extension of carry back of excess interest costs—
'(1) Chapter II of Part IV of the Finance Act 1996 (loan relationships) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) below.
(2) In paragraph 3(7) of Schedule 8 (permitted period of twelve months for carry-back of deficits), after "means" and before "the period" insert "subject to paragraph 3(7A) below".
(3) After paragraph 3(7) of Schedule 8, insert the following new paragraph—
"3(7A) This paragraph shall have effect in relation to a deficit, incurred by a company which is not large (as defined by SI 1998/3175 as subsequently amended)—

(a) as if in paragraph 3(7) above, the words 'three years' were substituted for each case of the words 'twelve months'; and
(b) which is incurred in any accounting periods ending in the period beginning on 1 April 2000 and ending on or before 31 March 2003.".'.

New clause 8—Relief for furnished holiday lettings—
'(1) Section 504 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (Letting of furnished holiday accommodation treated as a trade, supplementary provisions) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) below.
(2) In subsection (3)(6) the figure "70" shall be replaced by the figure "30".
(3) This section shall only apply for accounting periods ending in the period beginning on 1 April 2001 and ending on or before 31 March 2002.'.

Mr. Heath: These new clauses allow the House, should it wish—even at this late stage of this Parliament—to do something effective for businesses seriously affected by the foot and mouth crisis. Businesses in my constituency and in many rural constituencies throughout the country that have been affected by the crippling economic consequences of the disease simply do not understand why the Government are deaf to their need to survive this year.
The epidemic has been awful for the livestock industry. However if—and it is a big "if' because, in my own county of Somerset, new cases are being reported every day, so we are by no means sure that the epidemic is over—we are drawing to the end of the animal disease epidemic, I assure hon. Members that we are entering an epidemic of business failures in rural areas. Businesses in rural parts of Britain such as the south-west all say that they have suffered an extraordinary reduction in turnover in the past few months. I am sure that that also applies to the north-west and the north-east, where foot and mouth has done its worst, and even areas passed over by the epidemic, which have suffered in the same way from the downturn in economic circumstances and tourism. It is not just businesses directly associated with agriculture or
 
tourism that have suffered; a huge spectrum of businesses in every sector in every town and village throughout rural Britain has been affected.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although a devastating tragedy has hit many livestock farms, particularly smaller family farms, at least they have some cash flow coming through? Businesses that are indirectly affected, however, are the hidden victims of this terrible scourge and have no prospect of any cash flow improvement in the coming months. They are having a desperate time in making a good case to their bank managers to keep going.

Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend is right. The consequential losses, which no one could have expected, are quite extraordinary, and a range of businesses are involved. I have mentioned in the House before a garden centre in my constituency whose takings are down by 80 per cent. A dealer in lawnmowers and similar equipment has had his takings reduced by two thirds. A marquee manufacturer in my constituency has as its principal clients the major agricultural shows, all of which have been cancelled; the Royal Bath and West show, for example, is not happening. The firm is having to lay off workers because it no longer has any orders. Another such firm is a laundry whose trade is mainly with the hotel industry. It must now shut up shop. I even have in my constituency an animal incinerator which must close its doors because no one can bring animals to be burned, because of the foot and mouth restrictions. These are serious matters which are affecting the rural economy in a big way. What is so disappointing is the paucity of ideas and the lack of urgency on the part of Government in dealing with these issues.

Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Every hon. Member of whatever party who represents a rural constituency would agree with him. Does he agree that we probably face an increase in the problems to which he alluded as we come to the summer months? That is the time on which many of our tourism-related industries in rural areas depend for the great bulk of their income, and that is when we shall see the crisis magnified, long after, as we all hope, the disease has virtually disappeared.

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right. He knows and I know that a crisis taskforce was set up. It goes away and ponders, and that is all it does. The Minister for the Environment who chairs the taskforce gave a preliminary report, which was the last that the House heard about what it intended to do to deal with the crisis. We have a so-called Rural Affairs Cabinet Committee. What has it done during the crisis Nothing, as far as anyone can see.
I exclude from these strictures the Minister of Agriculture, who has reported frequently to the House about what he has been doing, but of course his purview is limited to the agricultural aspects. One of the problems to which we have repeatedly drawn attention is the fact that we do not have a Department of Rural Affairs, which might have taken wider view and recognised the fact that there is a crisis for the rural economy, not simply for the agricultural industry.
We are failing in our duty because the Government have not allowed the House the opportunity to give proper scrutiny to measures that could have been introduced over


the past few weeks. Now we face the extraordinary prospect that the House will dissolve at the beginning of next week without our having the opportunity properly to discuss in Government time the proposals that they might have introduced to deal with the crisis.

Miss Melanie Johnson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that so far 7,000 businesses have been helped, and £40 million worth in tax has been deferred by Customs and Exercise and the Inland Revenue to help businesses affected by foot and mouth?

Mr. Heath: Does the hon. Lady not understand that that is a drop in the ocean compared with magnitude of the crisis in our rural areas? Deferment of tax simply puts off the evil day when the bailiffs come in. That is the problem that the Government do not seem to understand.
The measures proposed in the new clauses are not the only steps that the Government should take, but they are at least an attempt to deal with issues such as restoring cash flow to many small businesses, in rural areas and elsewhere, and giving them an immediate benefit through the tax system. The carry-back of trading losses and excess interest costs could be made against previous years' accounts, which would provide immediate benefit and help them get through the present crisis, rather than offering help at some indeterminate stage in the future.

Miss Johnson: rose—

Mr. Heath: The hon. Lady wants to intervene, but she knows that we have limited time for the debate.

Miss Johnson: I am anxious that the hon. Gentleman will not allow me any time at all to respond to the debate. In four minutes the time will be up. Is he aware of the non-tax measures that have been taken, which will assist all the businesses affected by foot and mouth? Those measures include providing temporary relief for business rates, whereby authorities can offer hardship relief to small businesses with a rateable value of £12,000 or less, in the knowledge that central Government will reimburse 95 per cent. of the cost. There is an extension of the small loans guarantee. There is a Phoenix fund aimed at helping small business in the most distressed communities. There are regional venture capital funds as well. A further £18 million is being made available to help promote Britain as a tourist destination. Additional measures include a £15 million package—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady cannot reply to the debate in an intervention.

Mr. Heath: I hope that the hon. Lady is not castigating me for what her business managers consider to be the appropriate time for debating this important matter, for which not one minute of Government time has been given. It is an outrage that we are being told that we must hurry our comments on this crucial problem facing the country, especially rural areas, prior to the coming general election. We are told that there is lot time to discuss it. That tells us all we need to know about the Government's attitude to rural areas.
I will place a bet with the hon. Lady that more businesses will go out of business in rural areas over the next few months. She clearly considers her measures to

be magnanimous, generous and adequate. People in rural areas do not think so. The people who came to lobby the House from Powys in mid-Wales and from Cumbria were desperately seeking something from the Government and the House to keep their businesses going over this summer. The proposals in the new clause would be a start, and would certainly be more adequate than anything that the Government have come up with so far. If the Government cannot accept it, they must answer to the people in rural areas who will lose their businesses in the next few weeks. They must tell those people why they sat by and did nothing while a disaster for the rural economy unfolded.

Mr. Letwin: I do not want to detain the House for long. We thoroughly agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), and we would have liked other measures to have been introduced. We have been arguing for months for measures such as the £500 million interest-free loan scheme. The proposals in these new clauses would be beneficial.
By her tone of voice, the Economic Secretary showed the Government's neglect and misunderstanding of rural areas. Contrary to the tone in which some of the rational debates of the past three hours have been conducted, the tone in which the Economic Secretary replied to the hon. Gentleman was demonstrative of a total lack of understanding of the scale of the disaster that is and will be faced by rural business in the tourism-related sector as we approach the summer months. What has already—
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Programme motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 259.

Division No.206]
[9.8 pm


AYES


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Ernery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Baldry, Tony
Fabricant, Michael


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Fearn, Ronnie


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Flight, Howard


Bercow, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Blunt, Crispin
Fox, Dr Liam


Boswell, Tim
Fraser, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Garnier, Edward


Brady, Graham
Gill, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Gillen, Mrs Cheryl


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gorrie, Donald


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gray, James


Burns, Simon
Green, Damian


Butterfill, John
Greenway, John


Cash, William
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hammond, Philip


(Chipping Barnet)
Harvey, Nick


Chope, Christopher
Hayes, John


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Heald, Oliver


Collins, Tim
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Horam, John


Cotter, Brian
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Jenkin, Bernard


Day, Stephen

Key, Robert


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
king, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)






Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
St Aubyn, Nick


Leigh, Edward
Sayeed, Jonathan


Letwin, Oliver
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Lidington, David
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Livsey, Richard
Spicer, Sir Michael


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Streeter, Gary


Llwyd, Elfyn
Swayne, Desmond


Loughton, Tim
Syms, Robert


Luff, Peter
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton) 


McCrea, Dr William
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thompson, William


Madel, Sir David
Tredinnick, David


Malins, Humfrey
Trend, Michael


Maples, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Mates, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Wallace, Rt Hon James 


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Walter, Robert 


May, Mrs Theresa
Waterson, Nigel


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Wells, Bowen


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Welsh, Andrew


Moss, Malcolm
Whitney, Sir Raymond


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Whittingdale, John 


Öpik, Lembit
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd 


Ottaway, Richard
Willetts, David


Paice, James
Wilshire, David


Paterson, Owen
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Randall, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Yeo, Tim


Rendel, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robathan, Andrew



Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Tellers for the Ayes: 


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Mr. Paul Tyler and


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Mr. Edward Davey.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chaytor, David


Ainger, Nick
Chisholm, Malcolm


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clapham, Michael


Allen, Graham
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


(Swansea E)
 Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Ashton, Joe
 Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Austin, John
Clelland, David


Bailey, Adrian
Clwyd, Ann


Banks, Tony
Coaker, Vernon


Barnes, Harry
Coffey, Ms Ann


Barron, Kevin
Cohen, Harry


Battle, John
Connarty, Michael


Bayley, Hugh
Cooper, Yvette


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Corbett, Robin 


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bennett, Andrew F
Cousins, Jim


Benton, Joe
Cox, Tom


Bermingham, Gerald
Cranston, Ross



Berry, Roger
Crausby, David


Betts, Clive
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Blizzard, Bob
Cummings, John


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)
Davidson, Ian


Browne, Desmond
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Buck, Ms Karen
Davis, Rt Hon Terry


Burden, Richard
(B'ham Hodge H)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Denham, Rt Hon John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dobbin, Jim


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Donohoe, Brian H


Cann, Jamie
Doran, Frank 


Caplin, Ivor
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) 


Caton, Martin
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Efforts, Clive





Ellman, Mrs Louise
McAllion, John


Ennis, Jeff
McAvoy, Thomas


Etherington, Bill
McCabe, Steve


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Macdonald, Calum 


Fisher, Mark
McFall, John


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McIsaac, Shona


Flint, Caroline
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary 


Flynn, Paul
Mackinlay, Andrew



Follett, Barbara
McNamara, Kevin 


Fyfe, Maria
McNulty, Tony


Galbraith, Sam
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gapes, Mike
McWalter, Tony


Gardiner, Barry
McWilliam, John


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gerrard, Neil
Mallaber, Judy


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter 


Godman, Dr Norman A
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Godsiff, Roger
Marshall, David (Shettleston) 


Goggins, Paul
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Maxton, John 


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Gunnell, John
Merron, Gillian


Hain, Peter
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Miller, Andrew


Hanson, David
Mitchell, Austin


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Moffatt, Laura


Healey, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hendrick, Mark
Mudie, George


Hepburn, Stephen
Mullin, Chris


Heppell, John
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Naysmith, Dr Doug 


Hill, Keith
O"Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hinchliffe, David
Olner, Bill


Hoey, Kate
O'Neill, Martin


Hope, Phil
Pearson, Ian


Hopkins, Kelvin
Pendry, Rt Hon Tom


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Pickthall, Colin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pike, Peter L 


Howells, Dr Kim
Pond, Chris


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stre[...]ford)
Pope, Greg 


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pound, Stephen 


Humble, Mrs Joan
Powell, Sir Raymond


Hutton, John
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) 


Illsley, Eric
Primarolo, Dawn


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Prosser, Gwyn


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Jamieson, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Jenkins, Brian
Rammell, Bill


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick 


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Robertson, John


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
(Glasgow Anniesland)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Ms Jenny
Rogers, Allan


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Rowlands, Ted


Joyce, Eric
Roy, Frank


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ruddock, Joan


Keeble, Ms Sally
Sarwar, Mohammad


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Savidge, Malcolm 


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Shaw, Jonathan


Khabra, Piara S
Sheerman, Barry


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lammy, David
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Lepper, David
Skinner, Dennis


Levitt, Tom
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)



Lock, David
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Question accordingly negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 121.

Division No.206]
[9.8 pm


AYES


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Ernery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Baldry, Tony
Fabricant, Michael


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Fearn, Ronnie


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Flight, Howard


Bercow, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Blunt, Crispin
Fox, Dr Liam


Boswell, Tim
Fraser, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Garnier, Edward


Brady, Graham
Gill, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Gillen, Mrs Cheryl


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gorrie, Donald


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gray, James


Burns, Simon
Green, Damian


Butterfill, John
Greenway, John


Cash, William
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hammond, Philip


(Chipping Barnet)
Harvey, Nick


Chope, Christopher
Hayes, John


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Heald, Oliver


Collins, Tim
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Horam, John


Cotter, Brian
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Jenkin, Bernard


Day, Stephen

Key, Robert


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
king, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)






Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
St Aubyn, Nick


Leigh, Edward
Sayeed, Jonathan


Letwin, Oliver
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Lidington, David
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Livsey, Richard
Spicer, Sir Michael


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Streeter, Gary


Llwyd, Elfyn
Swayne, Desmond


Loughton, Tim
Syms, Robert


Luff, Peter
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton) 


McCrea, Dr William
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thompson, William


Madel, Sir David
Tredinnick, David


Malins, Humfrey
Trend, Michael


Maples, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Mates, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Wallace, Rt Hon James 


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Walter, Robert 


May, Mrs Theresa
Waterson, Nigel


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Wells, Bowen


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Welsh, Andrew


Moss, Malcolm
Whitney, Sir Raymond


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Whittingdale, John 


Öpik, Lembit
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd 


Ottaway, Richard
Willetts, David


Paice, James
Wilshire, David


Paterson, Owen
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Randall, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Yeo, Tim


Rendel, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robathan, Andrew



Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Tellers for the Ayes: 


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Mr. Paul Tyler and


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Mr. Edward Davey.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chaytor, David


Ainger, Nick
Chisholm, Malcolm


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clapham, Michael


Allen, Graham
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


(Swansea E)
 Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Ashton, Joe
 Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Austin, John
Clelland, David


Bailey, Adrian
Clwyd, Ann


Banks, Tony
Coaker, Vernon


Barnes, Harry
Coffey, Ms Ann


Barron, Kevin
Cohen, Harry


Battle, John
Connarty, Michael


Bayley, Hugh
Cooper, Yvette


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Corbett, Robin 


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bennett, Andrew F
Cousins, Jim


Benton, Joe
Cox, Tom


Bermingham, Gerald
Cranston, Ross



Berry, Roger
Crausby, David


Betts, Clive
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Blizzard, Bob
Cummings, John


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)
Davidson, Ian


Browne, Desmond
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Buck, Ms Karen
Davis, Rt Hon Terry


Burden, Richard
(B'ham Hodge H)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Denham, Rt Hon John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dobbin, Jim


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Donohoe, Brian H


Cann, Jamie
Doran, Frank 


Caplin, Ivor
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) 


Caton, Martin
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Efforts, Clive





Ellman, Mrs Louise
McAllion, John


Ennis, Jeff
McAvoy, Thomas


Etherington, Bill
McCabe, Steve


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Macdonald, Calum 


Fisher, Mark
McFall, John


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McIsaac, Shona


Flint, Caroline
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary 


Flynn, Paul
Mackinlay, Andrew



Follett, Barbara
McNamara, Kevin 


Fyfe, Maria
McNulty, Tony


Galbraith, Sam
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gapes, Mike
McWalter, Tony


Gardiner, Barry
McWilliam, John


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gerrard, Neil
Mallaber, Judy


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter 


Godman, Dr Norman A
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Godsiff, Roger
Marshall, David (Shettleston) 


Goggins, Paul
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Maxton, John 


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Gunnell, John
Merron, Gillian


Hain, Peter
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Miller, Andrew


Hanson, David
Mitchell, Austin


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Moffatt, Laura


Healey, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hendrick, Mark
Mudie, George


Hepburn, Stephen
Mullin, Chris


Heppell, John
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Naysmith, Dr Doug 


Hill, Keith
O"Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hinchliffe, David
Olner, Bill


Hoey, Kate
O'Neill, Martin


Hope, Phil
Pearson, Ian


Hopkins, Kelvin
Pendry, Rt Hon Tom


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Pickthall, Colin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pike, Peter L 


Howells, Dr Kim
Pond, Chris


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stre[...]ford)
Pope, Greg 


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pound, Stephen 


Humble, Mrs Joan
Powell, Sir Raymond


Hutton, John
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) 


Illsley, Eric
Primarolo, Dawn


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Prosser, Gwyn


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Jamieson, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Jenkins, Brian
Rammell, Bill


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick 


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Robertson, John


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
(Glasgow Anniesland)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Ms Jenny
Rogers, Allan


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Rowlands, Ted


Joyce, Eric
Roy, Frank


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ruddock, Joan


Keeble, Ms Sally
Sarwar, Mohammad


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Savidge, Malcolm 


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Shaw, Jonathan


Khabra, Piara S
Sheerman, Barry


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lammy, David
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Lepper, David
Skinner, Dennis


Levitt, Tom
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)



Lock, David
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)




Soley, Clive
Tynan, Bill


Southworth, Ms Helen
Vis, Dr Rudi 


Spellar, John
Walley, Ms Joan


Squire, Ms Rachel
Ward, Ms Claire


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wareing, Robert N


Steinberg, Gerry
Watts, David


Stevenson, George
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wicks, Malcolm


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Stringer, Graham
(Swansea W)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Wills, Michael


(Dewsbury)
Winnick, David


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C) 


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Mike 


Timms, Stephen
Worthington, Tony


Tipping, Paddy
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Todd, Mark
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Touhig, Don
Wyatt, Derek


Trickett, Jon



Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Tellers for the Noes: 


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Mr. Jim Dowd and 


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Mrs. Anne McGuire.

Division No. 207]
[9.24 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clapham, Michael


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


(Swansea E)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) 


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clelland, David


Austin, John
Clwyd, Ann 


Bailey, Adrian
Coaker, Vernon


Banks, Tony
Coffey, Ms Ann


Barnes, Harry
Cohen, Harry 


Barron, Kevin
Connar[...]y, Michael


Battle, John
Cooper Yvette


Bayley, Hugh
Corbett Robin


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Corbyn Jeremy 


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cousins Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Cox, Tom


Benton, Joe
Cranston, Ross


Bermingham, Gerald
Crausby, David


Berry, Roger
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley) 


Betts, Clive
Cummings, John 


Blizzard, Bob
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Davidson, Ian


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Davies Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry 


Browne, Desmond
(B'ham Hodge H)


Buck, Ms Karen
Denham, Rt Hon John


Burden, Richard
Dobbin, Jim


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank 


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Donohoe, Brian H 


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Doran, Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Cann, Jamie
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) 


Caplin, Ivor
Efford, Clive 


Caton, Martin
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Ennis, Jeff


Chaytor, David
Etherington, Bill 


Chisholm, Malcolm
Ewing Mrs Margaret





Field, Rt Hon Frank
McAllion, John


Fisher, Mark
McAvoy, Thomas


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McCabe, Steve 


Flint, Caroline
Macdonald, Calum


Flynn, Paul
McFall, John


Follett, Barbara
McGuire, Mrs Anne 


Foster, Rt Hon Derek

McIsaac, Shona


Fyfe, Maria
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Galbraith, Sam
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gapes, Mike
McNamara, Kevin


Gardiner, Barry
McNulty, Tony


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gerrard, Neil
McWalter, Tony


Gibson, Dr Ian
McWilliam, John



Godsiff, Roger
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Goggins, Paul
Mallaber, Judy 


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) 


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gunnell, John
Martlew, Eric


Hain, Peter
Maxton, John


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Merron, Gillian


Hanson, David
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)


Healey, John
Miller, Andrew


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Moffatt, Laura


Hendrick, Mark
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hepburn, Stephen
Moran, Ms Margaret


Heppell, John
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Mudie, George


Hill, Keith
Mullin, Chris


Hinchliffe, David
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hoey, Kate
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hope, Phil
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Olner, Bill


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
O'Neill, Martin 


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pearson, Ian 


Howells, Dr Kim
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Pike, Peter L


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pond, Chris


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pope, Greg


Hutton, John
Pound, Stephen


Iddon, Dr Brian
Powell, Sir Raymond


Illsley, Eric
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jamieson, David
Prosser, Gwyn


Jenkins, Brian
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Quinn, Lawrie


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Rammell, Bill


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Robertson, John


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
(Glasgow Anniesland) 


Jones, Ms Jenny
Roche, Mrs Barbara


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Dr Lynne (Sally Oak)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Rooney, Terry


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Joyce, Eric
Rowlands, Ted


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Roy, Frank


Keeble, Ms Sally
Ruddock, Joan


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Sarwar, Mohammad 


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Savidge, Malcolm


Khabra, Piara S
Shaw, Jonathan


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sheerman, Barry


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert 


Lammy, David
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Lepper, David
Skinner, Dennis


Levitt, Tom
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Soley, Clive


Lock, David
Southworth, Ms Helen






Spellar, John
Vis, Dr Rudi


Squire, Ms Rachel
Walley, Ms Joan


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Ward, Ms Claire


Steinberg, Gerry
Wareing, Robert N


Stevenson, George
Watts, David


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Welsh, Andrew


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Whitehead, Dr Alan 


Stringer, Graham
Wicks, Malcolm


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
williams, Rt Hon Alan


(Dewsbury)
(Swansea W)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wills, Michael


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Winnick, David


Timms, Stephen
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Tipping, Paddy
Wood, Mike


Todd, Mark
Worthington, Tony


Touhig, Don
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Trickett, Jon
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wyatt, Derek


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Mr. Graham Allen and


Tynan, Bill
Mr. Jim Dowd.




NOES


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Collins, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Beth, Rt Hon A J
Cotter, Brian


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cran, James


Bercow, John
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Blunt, Crispin
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Boswell, Tim
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brady, Graham
Fabricant, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Fearn, Ronnie


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Browning, Mrs Angela
Flight, Howard


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fox, Dr Liam


Bums, Simon
Fraser, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Gale, Roger


Cash, William
Garnier, Edward


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Gill, Christopher


(Chipping Barnet)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Chope, Christopher
Gorrie, Donald


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gray, James





Green, Damian
Randall, John


Greenway, John
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Rendel, David


Hammond, Philip
Robathan, Andrew


Harvey, Nick
Robertson, Laurence (Tewkb'ry)


Hayes, John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Heald, Oliver
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Russell, Bob (Colchester) 


Horam, John
St Aubyn, Nick


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Jenkin, Bernard
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Key, Robert
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Spicer, Sir Michael


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Swayne, Desmond


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Syms, Robert


Leigh, Edward
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Letwin, Oliver
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lidington, David
Thompson, William


Livsey, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Trend, Michael 


Loughton, Tim
Tyler, Paul


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tyrie, Andrew


McCrea, Dr William
Viggers, Peter


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Wallace, Rt Hon James


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Walter, Robert


McLoughlin, Patrick
Waterson, Nigel


Madel, Sir David
Wells, Bowen 


Matins, Humfrey
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Maples, John
Whittingdale, John


Mates, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Willetts, David 


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Wilshire, David


May, Mrs Theresa

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Moss, Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Öpik, Lembit



Ottaway, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Paice, James
Mr. Peter Atkinson and


Paterson, Owen
Mr. Peter Luff.

Question accordingly a greed to.

Bill read the Third Time, and passed.

Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill Programme (No. 2)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): I beg to move,
That the Order of 30th April 2001(Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill (Programme)) shall be varied as follows:—

Consideration and Third Reading

1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order.

The motion gives the House two hours to complete consideration of this small but important Bill. It was considered in Committee yesterday morning, and the Committee completed its line-by-line consideration in just under two and a half hours. This evening, the House has only one group of amendments to consider. I hope that all hon. Members will agree that two hours will allow sufficient time for a full debate of the issues before the Bill is sent on to another place.

I urge hon. Members to agree the motion, so that we can begin consideration of the amendments.

Mr. James Paice: Few Bills, other than those covering genuine emergencies, can have had so little time devoted to them in Committee or on the Floor of the House as has been devoted to this measure. I remind the House that the Prime Minister promised this Bill on 30 March 2000). It did not have a Second Reading until a week ago, so we have already suffered a long delay because of the Government's incompetence in turning the Prime Minister's promise into a Bill.
As the Minister said, the Committee yesterday had only two and a half hours—

Mr. Ainsworth: We had all day but did not need it.

Mr. Paice: The Minister says from a sedentary position that the Committee had all day but did not need it, but, if he were to be frank, he would acknowledge that some matters received extremely cursory attention because of the pressure to make progress, as  shall describe in a moment.

Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): The hon. Gentleman was not there.

Mr. Paice: I may not have been in the Committee, but I am perfectly able to read the Hansard report of the sitting. I have done so, but I suspect l hat the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) has not.
The Opposition have supported the principle behind the Bill, as we made clear on Second Reading—indeed, I called for this measure three years ago—but the Government are again confusing support for a principle with support for the detail of a measure.
Many matters arise from the Bill with which the Opposition do not agree, some of which were considered yesterday, such as the definition of rural areas and rural businesses and the level of rateable value. In respect of the latter, the Government advanced rather obscure arguments in favour of the figure of £6,000, but a figure of £9,000 for pubs and petrol stations appeared in secondary legislation only two or three weeks ago. Considerable concern has been expressed about how a shop should be defined. That is the subject of the amendments that we shall debate shortly, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) will move. There was much discussion on Second Reading about the definition of a shop, the fact that takeaway food and confectionery were excluded and what percentage of the business those items could account for if the exclusion was to have effect.
There is also the issue of the Bill's impact on existing businesses. The equestrian sector —riding schools, livery stables, stud farms and many other equestrian activities —will be greatly affected.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is debating the Bill, but we are on the programme motion.

Mr. Paice: I am endeavouring to explain why I do not believe that there is sufficient time under the motion, Mr. Speaker, but of course I heed your admonition.
The equestrian sector of rural industry will be seriously affected, yet when the Bill was in Committee yesterday, that sector was debated for only 10 minutes. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) moved an amendment and, almost in the same breath, was persuaded to withdraw it, without any substantial debate having taken place. Yet it has been said on Second Reading and in Committee that the Bill will affect equestrian businesses because the existing businesses, which receive no rate relief other than the traditional stud farm relief—introduced by the previous Government, I am pleased to say—will be competing with new equestrian businesses that will secure the rate relief under the Bill. Nothing in the Bill as it stands corrects that unfair situation. No one could contend that the 10 minutes of debate that this subject received in Committee yesterday was adequate to deal with what everyone accepts is a substantial rural business—indeed, it is the second largest rural business after farming.

Mr. James Gray: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about equestrian businesses. In retrospect, I regret that I was weak enough to accept the rough looks that I was receiving across the Floor. Labour Members had heard that the Prime Minister had gone to Buckingham palace and were so excited by this momentous event that they were determined that the Committee's proceedings would end by lunchtime. In retrospect, I wish that we had given the subject much more time during the afternoon. Not only are these immensely important issues for the countryside, but the rates charged for equestrian businesses are extremely complicated and would have benefited from detailed examination.

Mr. Paice: 1 am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he knows, I have taken a close interest in the industry ever
since I have been a Member of this House because of my constituency involvement with the racing industry. It is a very important sector of the rural economy.
My hon. Friend was persuaded to curtail debate yesterday to some 10 minutes, which he now regrets.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I was talking only today to someone who runs an equestrian centre. The industry is suffering hugely because of the foot and mouth crisis, with bridleways being closed. The lady to whom I spoke is going out of business.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the Bill, not the progyarnme motion.

Mr. Leigh: I was just going to say—

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was just going to say anything.

Mr. Paice: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) will seek to catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker, and may be able to debate the Bill in more detail. A lot of points will need to be made on Third Reading.
The programme motion deals not only with amendments but with the time allocated for Third Reading. My hon. Friends the Members for North Wiltshire and for Gainsborough, who obviously have cogent and important points to make on Third Reading, may be prevented from doing so by the timetable motion.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman has, among other things, suggested that there was not sufficient time to debate the Bill in Committee. He said that he has read Hansard, despite not being in the Committee. I refer him to the point in the Committee's proceedings when the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said that there was cross-party consensus that no more time was needed beyond 10 pm. I remind the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) that the Committee finished before 1 pm.

Mr. Paice: The Minister falls into his own trap. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire said that there was consensus that there was no need to go beyond 10 pm, yet the business was curtailed at 12.55 pm, which shows that he was right that those matters should have been debated in Committee until 10 pm last night, but were not.

Mr. John Bercow: Is not the Minister making the error, which Ministers habitually make on these occasions, of supposing that the adequacy of consideration in Committee is synonymous with adequacy of consideration on the Floor of the House? I did not have the good fortune to serve on the Committee. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need adequate time to justify our inclusive approach in relation to these matters, compared with the rather narrow, undesirable, priggish exclusivity of the Government?

Mr. Paice: The only aspect of my hon. Friend's intervention to which I would take exception is the

generality with which he used the word Minister. I would say "Ministers of this Government" because, although my hon. Friend was not in the House at the time, I can assure him that Ministers in the previous Government did not adopt that approach.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow),I did have the honour to serve on the Committee. Does my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) agree that, in tune with what the Father of the House said earlier this afternoon, the true scrutiny role of the House should be performed on the Floor of the House rather than in Committee on an upper corridor?

Mr. Paice: That is one of the points on which I did agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) in his farewell statement to the House, although of course I did not agree with everything that he said.
In conclusion, I want to raise a point about abattoirs, which are directly affected by the Bill.

Mr. Bercow: Put a few Ministers in them!

Mr. Paice: I am sure that there will be a long queue for them if my hon. Friend's desire is met, but the serious point—Third Reading would allow the opportunity to expand on it—is that part of the reason for the foot and mouth crisis and the rapid spread of the disease was the absence of abattoirs.

Mr. Andrew Miller: You closed them all.

Mr. Paice: I can assure the hon. Gentleman, who shouts from a sedentary position, that the rate of closure under his party's Government is substantially higher than it was under the previous Government.
The crucial point is that the Bill will affect abattoirs, partly because it is the farmers and the farm business premises that may be currently consigning animals to abattoirs, but also because many farmers may wish to use the provisions of the Bill to gain—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has dispensed with the programme motion and is talking about the Bill, but we can talk only about the programme motion at the moment.

Mr. Paice: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker.
I contend that the programme motion does not provide adequate time to cover all the points that should be made, both in ways—

Mr. Michael Jack: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Paice: I will just finish the point.
The motion does not provide adequate time to debate the amendments, which my right hon. Friend will deal with, or to debate all the arguments that should he debated on Third Reading, which are beginning to come in a flurry from my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend agree that the very fact that we have amendments to debate, and indeed a Third


Reading to consider, offers us the opportunity for mature reflection on arguments that were put, albeit inadequately, in Committee, hence the fact that this evening we are now faced with further amendments to the Bill, justifying a greater amount of time than the two hours offered by the Government?

Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. In Committee, the Minister promised to take away some items and consider them further, and I do not believe that the two hours that we have been allocated is adequate, particularly in view of the fact that Ministers have only had from yesterday morning until today to consider those items. We are under pressure to pass the Bill before dissolution. Tomorrow, the Bill will go to another place and is expected to pass through all its stages in order to receive Royal Assent before Dissolution. Therefore, we shall lose the opportunity that is norm ally allowed for any legislation, which may not be given proper scrutiny in the House, to go to the other place for more in-depth scrutiny, using the expertise that we all know exists there.

Mr. Jack: Has my hon. Friend considered the fact that the Minister may have a rather restricted view on the amount of time needed by virtue of his former incarnation as a Government Whip? As we all know, the Government Whips' objective is to get business through the House at any cost.

Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend's experience of those matters tells in such debates. Not all hon. Members necessarily share his cynicism, but I can vouchsafe that I do, having been a Member as long as he has and having seen the machinations of the dark corners of the Whips Office. I understand that the business takes precedence, rather than any propriety in scrutinising legislation.
The Bill is important in itself. We welcome it in principle, but believe that it should be given greater scrutiny on Report, on Third Reading and in the other place. I regret very much that the Government have seen fit to introduce a two-hour timetable. Given that we are still at a very early stage of the night's proceedings compared with what we were used to only a few years ago, there could have easily been time to give the Bill the far greater scrutiny that it will not now be given. That is a great shame, but there are many points that my hon. Friends and I wish to make in debating the amendments and on Third Reading, and we shall demonstrate the validity of the arguments that I have adduced against the motion.

Mr. David Heath: This is, by common consent on both sides of Me House, a modest Bill. It is limited in scope, flawed in detail, late in formulation and even more dilatory in execution, but with all its manifest inadequacies, it is important and should reach the statute book before Parliament is dissolved. I do not believe that we should take up the time that our constituents properly expect us to spend debating what is—or is not —in the Bill with a sterile argument on process. I urge the House to move on to the debate on the Bill itself. Let us pass it into law at the earliest opportunity because, however inadequate, it is better than nothing.

Mr. James Gray: I rise to contribute briefly to the programme motion debate on this modest Bill, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) rightly describes it, for two reasons. First, as I said a moment ago, in retrospect, I am sorry that yesterday's debates in Committee were so sharply curtailed. Hon. Members will remember that there was an atmosphere of excitement as the helicopters hovered overhead and the Prime Minister made his stately way down the Mall to visit Her Majesty the Queen to request the Dissolution of Parliament. There was a general feeling in Committee that sitting around for an afternoon discussing such matters was not the right thing to do. 1 regret that I gave in to that feeling and allowed my remarks on important matters connected with the horse industry to be limited to only 10 minutes.
Perhaps I should declare an interest: I am the chairman of the horse and pony taxation committee—an informal committee of the House, established by my noble Friend Lord Cope of Berkeley, who will wish to take a close interest in the Bill's equestrian provisions when it is debated in the other House tomorrow. Furthermore, I am an unpaid consultant to the British Horse Industry Confederation, a body that brings together all the interests of the horse industry throughout the nation. The Bill's provisions will have a significant effect on that industry; we have been debating such matters in the committee and the confederation for many years. As long ago as 1987, we nearly brought in an amendment to the Finance Bill that would have changed the status of the horse on farms to that of an agricultural animal, thereby removing business rates from all buildings in which horses were accommodated. These are complex matters and we in the horse industry are concerned about elements of the Bill that will help the industry in some respects but that may be worrying in others.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: What does that have to do with the programme motion?

Mr. Gray: Although programme motions have only recently been invented, I am surprised that after his many years in this place, the hon. Gentleman does not understand the relevance of my comments. The answer is that the amendment that we tabled on equestrian matters has not been selected. That means that the only detailed discussions took place yesterday when, sadly —in retrospect, I regret it—I curtailed my remarks on that complex subject. I thus seek extensive time on Third Reading to discuss those matters. Unfortunately, only two hours to discuss everything—the programme motion, amendments and Third Reading — is not enough to discuss extraordinarily complex matters.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman knows anything about the business rate regime in so far as it affects horse matters on farms. It is extraordinarily difficult, delicate and complex. Broadly speaking, it achieves cross-party consensus. We are talking about riding schools throughout the nation. We are not talking about something grand but about something very ordinary: horse matters in all our constituencies.
It is thus a matter of great regret that neither in Committee yesterday nor, because of the programme motion in the House today, shall we have any time to


discuss such complex matters as how riding schools have declined in recent years. Every year, 200 riding schools disappear because of the tax and rating system that we shall debate later.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What has that got to do with the programme motion?

Mr. Gray: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not understand by now but I shall try again. It is important that I should explain how complex such matters are so that it should be clearly understood that we do not have enough time to discuss them. If they were small and simple, we could discuss them in a few seconds, but because they are difficult, and because he does not have the faintest idea of them, I must explain that we do not have enough time.

Mr. Leigh: What my hon. Friend's comments have to do with time is this: as riding stables go out of business every day of the week and as the industry is in crisis, the House should be given time to debate these matters to bring them to the attention of Ministers and to try to put pressure on them. The industry accounts for 6 per cent. of the total work force. There is minimal—indeed, no—compensation. We need time to discuss that. Again and again, the Government ram through programme motions—two hours here, one hour there. That is not good enough. People are not being properly represented.

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point well. In this country, 2.4 million people ride horses; 1 million horses are kept. The equestrian industry is the second largest in the countryside. We are talking about—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until we discuss the Bill before he tells us how many equestrian exercises are going on throughout the country.

Mr. Gray: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I will happily do so.
The business rate regime covering equestrian businesses in the countryside is badly flawed; there are peculiar anomalies. For example, if a private stable is next door to one's house—attached by a wall—it is exempt from business rates in the countryside. If, however, the private stable is at some distance from the house, it is not exempt and one has to pay business rates on it even though it is an entirely private—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I point out again to the hon. Gentleman that that has nothing to do with the programme motion. He must wait until we move on to the Bill to tell us those interesting facts.

Mr. Gray: I understand, Mr. Speaker.
The point that I was making—albeit inadequately as I am inexperienced in such matters-is that the two hours available to deal with the whole process, including amendments on village shops and Third Reading, are wildly inadequate for covering the complex detail of the rating regime as it affects equestrian businesses in the

countryside. However, I think that we have had an opportunity to make that reasonably clear. That brings us back to the process—
It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) and Order [this day].

ESTIMATES, 2001–02

Resolved,
That further resources, not exceeding £149,381,539,000 be authorised for use for defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2002, and that a further sum, not exceeding £144,305,891,000. be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs of defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2002, as set out in HC 345, 346. 347 and 348.—[Mr. Timms.]
Ordered,
That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing resolution; And that the Chairman of Ways at d Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Andrew Smith, Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Stephen Timms and Miss Melanie Johnson do prepare and bring it in.—[Mr. Timms.]

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Mr. Stephen Timms accordingly presented a Bill to appropriate the supply authorised in this Session of Parliament: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time this day, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 96].

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading Read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Order [this day] and Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

RATING (FORMER AGRICULTURAL PREMISES A ND RURAL SHOPS) BILL PROGRAMME (NO. 2)

Question again proposed.

Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I feel that it should be plat ed on record that we, the House of Commons, have just approved estimates for £149 billion in 55 seconds—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me reply. We have acted in accordance with long-standing Standing Orders, and these matters are, of course, properly recorded.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true that it took only 55 seconds because the Conservative party did not want to vote against it?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot comment on those matters.

Mr. Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. No debate is allowed so that was a completely duff point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I have a nicer way of putting things than the hon. Gentleman Mr. Gray.

Mr. Gray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It puts the little matter that we are discussing into context to think that, according to the explanatory notes, if the Bill becomes law, up to £16 million will be spent over five years, which translates as roughly £3 million a year. When I compare that with the £149,381,539,000 that we agreed in a matter of seconds, Perhaps I should be grateful for the fact that we have two hours in which to discuss a mere £16 million.
However, in the countryside, post-foot and mouth disease, the £16 million is crucial to the farms that the Bill will allow to diversify. That diversification will be crucial to the riding schools and other equestrian businesses throughout the nation that are going out of business. The matter is of great importance, which is why I believe that the time allocated to it in wildly inadequate.
The Programming Sub-Committee met yesterday morning at 10 o'clock. I made the point that it is absurd to have a Committee in which no record is taken. There is no purpose in the Opposition and the Government debating the programming proposed by the Government if there is no one present to take note of those points. Members of the Programming Sub-Committee then have to repeat in Standing Committee the valuable points that they made so that they are put on tilt record. I hope that the Modernisation Committee, or whatever abstruse organisation is responsible for such matters, will take that into account and consider keeping an official record of Programming Sub-Committees so that our powerful points on whether enough time is available are recorded and perhaps referred to when subsequent programming motions are discussed.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend maes a powerful point about the absence of a verbatim record or even of a minute of the proceedings of the Programming Sub-Committee that considers the terms of a programme motion. That concern has been raised before, not least in relation to other Bills. Does he accept that one reason why that is problematic is that the absence of a record tends inevitably to lead to argument about who said what in the Committee, when they said it, or whether they said it at all?

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He has participated in many Programming Sub-Committees and knows their shortcomings. I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, are considering whether a Hansard reporter should be present to produce a formal record of what happens in them. That would be an eminently sensible innovation for the new Parliament to consider.
There is another absurdity to take into account. As the Minister said, the Programming Sub-Committee was reasonably agreeable towards the Bill's timetable. That was because the Bill has broad cross-party support and we thought that it was sensible to sit until 10 o'clock last night. I shudder to mention it in Public, but the usual channels had duly considered that factor well in advance of the sitting of the Programming Sub-Committee. Therefore, its meeting was absurd and a waste of time. That highlights the nonsense that has come about as a result of the Government's so-called programming ideas. Either both sides of the House agree on a suitable programme for discussion of such matters, or they do not. By and large, we have agreed since time immemorial; rarely have we disagreed on how much time should be given to discuss a Bill or other business.
However, if we disagree, there is no Hansard reporter to take a note of that fact and the reasons for it, which means that we have to repeat our arguments in Standing Committee. The system makes no sense. The programme motion for this Bill was relatively generous and the Bill could, theoretically, have been discussed in Standing Committee until 10 o'clock last night. Both sides of the House agreed to that. None the less, two Ministers, two Whips and half a dozen Back Benchers had to spend five or 10 minutes yesterday morning meeting in a Committee to agree something that had already been approved. I hope that those points will be noted when the future of programming is considered in the next Parliament. It has not worked. Well established and acceptable procedures have managed to achieve the same results.
In that context, allowing us only two hours today to discuss the Bill's remaining stages perhaps reflects the fact that we did not make use of the full time allocated to us last night. That was because of the great excitement buzzing around the Committee Room as a result of the Prime Minister's announcement. However, that was before we saw his nauseating performance in the school in Southwark, which made the nation call for the sick bag.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is certainly straying from the programme motion.

Mr. Gray: You are, of course, right. Mr. Speaker. I apologise, but I was so overcome by the horror of what I saw on the news last night that I deviated from the motion.
The truth is that the Bill deals with difficult and important matters. The issue is complicated and important to hon. Members who represent rural constituencies. I hope that the Government will see sense and, even at this late hour, allow us more time to have a proper discussion of village shops and the diversification of farms. I am particularly concerned about the equestrian industry. Either they should give us more time tonight or, at the very least, the Minister should assure us that they have listened carefully to our concerns. They are reasonably aware of the problems facing the equestrian industry. In the unlikely event that they form a Government after 7 June, I hope that they will say that they will consider these points. The Conservative party has said that, when we are in government, we will impose zero business rates on equestrian industries and other businesses in the countryside.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) needs to be answered, because it is one that Liberal Democrat Members regularly make in these debates. They say that these are important matters and that we should not spend time debating the programme motion because that takes up some of the time that we have available to discuss the Bill. We only have two hours to discuss the remaining stages of the Bill, so the pressure is on us to shut up. Every minute that we take on the programme motion means that less time is available for consideration of the Bill. That is a sort of kowtow version of politics, whereby the Opposition have to give way to Government blackmail and the way in which they ram legislation through Parliament.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend has generously complimented the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome


(Mr. Heath) on his remarks on the programme motion, but the said hon. Gentleman does not even have the courtesy to listen to the compliment that is being paid to him.

Mr. Leigh: I do not want to get involved in that debate because the hon. Gentleman is having an important discussion elsewhere. [Interruption.]

Mr. Brian Cotter: It is disgraceful of Conservative Members to make such comments when my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is talking to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Leigh: It does not matter who the hon. Gentleman is speaking to. The fact is that he made a point and I was seeking to reply to it. We cannot let that point pass. The Opposition cannot be put under moral pressure not to do what Oppositions have traditionally done, which is to debate programme motions properly. We have a perfect right to do that.
Each time we debate a programme motion, the Government look back through history and quote all the times that Conservative Governments introduced guillotine motions. It is true that, on occasion, Conservative Governments have had to introduce guillotine motions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Yes, I accept that we did that. The then Opposition sought, quite rightly from their point of view, to prolong debate because that weapon was available to them. When Labour Members were in opposition, they did that extremely well. I sat through many Standing Committees in which they spoke at length. They were not filibustering and were not out of order, and sometimes we spent many hours in Committee.
The sittings of the Committee on which I served and that considered the Bill that led to the privatisation of British Telecom went on for more than 100 hours, and we considered hardly any of the clauses. It was on occasions such as those that Conservative Governments introduced programme motions. We then had a great set-piece debate on the Floor of the House, which lasted for three hours. Important Front Benchers made speeches and the argument went to and fro across the Floor. It was a big occasion. Now, as a matter of course, the Government introduce programme motions for everything. I know that some Members argue that that is the right way to proceed, but, surely, programme motions should be introduced on the basis of consensus and the House should not be treated with contempt. The Government should not say that matters that are important—they affect the livelihoods of those who run equestrian centres and village shops—will receive only two hours of debate.
The Government say, "If you want to talk about the programme motion, you'll get even less time, mate. It's up to you. Just take it and be stuffed." That is what they are saying and it is simply not good enough. When programme motions are introduced, we shall argue again and again the point that the House must have more time.
I do not understand what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said. In his first breath, he said that this was a modest Bill that had much to be modest about, but in his second sentence he said that it was a very important Bill. He is a Liberal. Is it an important Bill or

a modest one? Is it  complex Bill or one that does not need much debating? Does it affect people's real lives? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can enlighten us.

Mr. David Heath: I am grateful—

Miss McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman is back.

Mr. Heath: The hon. Lady intervenes on my intervention to say that I am back. She knows perfectly well that I got no further than the Speaker's Chair.
The hon. Gentleman asked how the Bill can simultaneously be important and modest. It is important because it provides some relief, however modest, to the businesses that we represent in rural areas, which desperately need it. t is modest because it does not go nearly far enough, as I made clear in my contributions on Second Reading and in Committee.

Mr. Leigh: That is a fair point; the hon. Gentleman has now explained himself to the House. He has told us why this is an important area of debate and why we need to look at it in depth. There is tremendous suffering and part of the tourism industry, which employs large numbers of people, is not receiving adequate help. The hon. Gentleman made the important point that the measure is too modest, so presumably we could have all sorts of arguments and debates about how to improve the Bill and achieve proper scrutiny to ensure that we deliver more targeted help to businesses that need it.
I have a sneaking suspicion that, although the Bill has modest aims, it deals wit a complex and difficult area. It is hard to target help in the right way; it is virtually impossible for the House of Commons to have a serious debate in under two hours and achieve proper scrutiny to ensure that help is properly targeted. We rely on the other place. We have to do so again and again because the Lords do not have a savage guillotine procedure. In this case, however, we I know that enormous moral pressure will be put on the there place; Ministers will tell their colleagues in the Lords that the issue is important and the industry is suffering; they will discuss what will happen if they delay the Bill too long and if certain matters are debated. They will say that the Lords have got the expertise, but the Bill could fall.
I do not doubt that, for once, the Bill will be rushed through the other place Normally, the Lords are good, as they are not bound by party or partisan politics; they are prepared to look at things in a careful and considered way. However, there is a danger that, having received inadequate—indeed, derisory—scrutiny in the Commons tonight, this important Bill will go to the other place and, despite the Lords' best efforts, emerge as flawed legislation.
We must ask ourselves why, when we had so much warning about what was going to be announced this week, it was necessary for the Government to behave as they have. Why do they always have to use their enormous majority as a bathering ram and deploy arrogant, overbearing and overweening power to destroy any attempt by the Opposition to debate such matters? All that we are asking for is serious discussion. The Government will get their way today and, in a very short time, the Bill will leave the House of Commons. However, the House will have done itself no credit in the way in which it has discussed those matters.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I should like to congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill to alleviate some of the problems affecting our rural constituencies. I have been in the House long enough to remember when our industrial communities were ravaged by the previous Conservative Government, of whom the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) was a member. There was no sympathy at all for the communities that my hon. Friends ad I represented.
The Government have responded to issues concerning the nation at large. They have not introduced sectarian or politically vindictive legislation, but something positive. It is a sad tragedy—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is retiring soon but, for the sake of even-handedness, I must tell him that he is going beyond the scope of the programme motion. Those are matters on which, perhaps, he can speak when we get to the Bill itself.

Mr. Rogers: You are perfectly right, Mr. Speaker. I was going on to say that I was grateful that time was being made available. The Opposition complained that the Government were not making time available but, the fact is, we need to have a programme motion so that the Bill can benefit rural constituencies. The Opposition are trying to hold up a Bill that will benefit people in rural constituencies.

Mr. Damian Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rogers: No, the hon. Gentleman has had plenty of time to participate and I am sure that he can do so again later. It is no good the Opposition bleating about the fact that a Labour Government are introducing legislation. We need a programme motion to get that legislation through. If we do not, people in rural constituencies will suffer and those who run stables, shops and small businesses in rural areas will not be able to get any help. It is important that we support the Government's programme motion and congratulate them on what they are doing.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Order of 30th April 2001 (Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill (Programme)) shall be varied as follows:—

Consideration and Third Reading

1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order.

Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill

Not amended, considered.

Clause 3

RATE RELIEF FOR RURAL FOOD SHOPS

Mr. Damian Green: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 3, leave out "food".

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 3, line 6, leave out "food".
No. 4, in page 3, line 7, leave out from "consisting" to end of line 20 and insert—
'of the provision of essential goods or services to the community in which it is located, such goods or services to be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order'.
No. 5, in title, line 3, leave out "food".

Mr. Green: The purpose of the amendments is consistent with the aim of the Opposition throughout the proceedings on the Bill, which has been to improve it. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) who, sadly, is no longer in his place, and who has not taken part in any of the previous debates on the Bill, was wrong to say that the Conservative party was seeking to delay the Bill. We have said that we support it in principle. We did not oppose it on Second Reading. We have discussed the efficacy of the Committee stage. Nothing could be more inaccurate than the statement that the Opposition were trying to delay the progress of the Bill.
At every stage through which the House has passed extremely quickly this week, we have consistently sought to improve the Bill. Earlier we heard an interesting debate about whether the Bill was modest or important or both. The truth is that it is both. It is important that some relief goes to businesses, whether farm diversification businesses or village shops, that are suffering as never before under the Government's policies. Equally, it is apparent, not just to those of us on the Opposition Benches, but to the many organisations that represent the bodies that will benefit from the small help given by the Bill, that it goes nothing like far enough. The amendments seek to do what we have sought to do at every stage of the Bill: to give it teeth and to add to the generosity of the benefits that will be given to businesses under the Bill.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: How much?

Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman, too, has not taken part in any of the previous debates on the Bill. If he will contain himself, he will see what benefits would accrue from the amendments.

Mr. Michael Jack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he believe that he was right to use the word "generosity"? Would not the word "necessity" have been more appropriate?

Mr. Green: I was trying, as ever, with generosity of spirit to be kind to the Government. They may think that


they are being generous to the rural businesses that are suffering so much, but of course that is not the case. They have introduced this rather inadequate Bill and, as we heard, there was a huge delay between First and Second Reading, which is why we are having to go through the various stages of the Bill with indecent haste.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: How much?

Mr. Green: The amendments are designed to improve clause 3 by making it less restrictive. Throughout our proceedings on the Bill, we have tried to improve the parts relating to farm businesses that wish to diversify, and we have tried to extend the Government's restrictive definition of the village shops that will benefit from the small amount of rate relief.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: How much?

Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman keeps shouting, "How much?" from a sedentary position. If he bothered to read the amendments, he would realise that I am seeking to extend the number and type of shops that would benefit. I am sure that, with his characteristic diligence, he has read the notes from the Library. The Government's proposals entail advantage to the various businesses of £16 million over five years. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has already observed, that adds up to just over £3 million a year. I am sure that the hon. Member for Workington has assiduously read the Hansard of the Second Reading debate, so he will know that the Government's agencies for the countryside say that the tourism industry alone has lost something like £2 billion during the foot and mouth crisis. Indeed, his own constituents have suffered as much as anyone during this dreadful outbreak.
The amendment would remove the unnecessary restrictions imposed by the Government on the type of village store that can receive this modest rate relief. The essential purpose of all four amendments is to widen the definition of "a qualifying food store." Under clause 3, the only stores that can benefit from the rate relief provided in this Bill and in the Local Government Finance Act 1988 which it amends are narrowly defined food stores. The Government have explained why they believe the definition should be so narrow and confined to a store that is "wholly or mainly" involved in selling food. I genuinely believe that they are being unnecessarily restrictive. Without the amendments, the ultimate purpose of the Bill will be partially negated.
It is not a matter of controversy across the House that the underlying point of the Bill and the legislation that it amends, which was passed by the previous Conservative Government, is to help those shops that provide an essential service to village communities, as far too many village shops and services have closed. Successive Governments have sought ways to mitigate the many problems that face such stores, and to find practical solutions that will enable them to carry on in business.
With the amendments, I want to draw back the veil that the Government have placed over this issue. They define these essential services as predominantly food shops. They have said that the underlying purpose of the Bill is

to ensure that all the essential services that contribute towards a decent, coherent, civilised society should be as available to those who live in small, rural communities as they are to those who live in large, urban communities. That is a wholly admirable aim. My complaint about the Bill and the reason for these amendments is that, as currently drafted, the Government's definition of a shop does not serve that admirable aim.
The Minister and his right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions have said that they want to avoid loopholes and to prevent shops from slipping in at the edge. They rejected previous amendments in which we sought to replace the word "mainly" with "in part". The Government regarded as ineligible a food shop with 40 per cent. of its turnover from food sales, because they thought that that would be exploiting a loophole.
On Second Reading, and in Committee, the Government made it clear that, for reasons which escape me, they have a particular horror of antique shops being included in the definition. It is clear that either the Minister or his right hon. Friend has had a bad experience in an antique shop, because they have a wholly unjustified dislike of them. Regardless of their slightly odd personal prejudices, that is not an adequate basis for policy making by a responsible Government. Much of clause 3 is a characteristically ingenious attempt to plug the various loopholes that the Government say they are extremely anxious to avoid. In Committee, both we and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) pointed out that a large part of clause 3 was devoted to preventing a shop from installing a microwave oven in which people could heat up meat pies. It seemed to De that, without my amendments, clause 3 was almost more designed to be restrictive than to be permissive. That struck me as being the wrong emphasis in a Bill that sought to help businesses.

Mr. James Gray: Does not one of the most peculiar aspects of the clause feature in the proposed new subsection (6CA) in subsection (3)? Line 8 contains the words "excluding confectionery". If there were two sweet shop in the same village, they would not be able to claim rate relief. That strikes me as bizarre, but in villages such as Lacock in my constituency it might well happen.

Mr. Green: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to a point raised in another of our Committee debates. As he knows, we engaged in an extensive discussion about why the Government were so anxious to exclude any shop with a microwave oven that could heat up meat pies. We also discussed whether the exclusion of confectionery shops was in any way sensible. The definition of confectionery is not available—I have looked at the original legislation, and it is not there—so the Government will be excluding some shops that may well provide essential services in villages.
I think the Government will regret their action. I think that, if they leave the Bill as it stands, they will not receive even the meagre credit that they perhaps deserve for finally introducing the Bill. There will be villages in which the shop that people regard as their essential store—the shop that they want to keep open, and consider to be a valuable part-of village life—cannot stay open, precisely because of the unnecessary restrictions that the Government have included in various parts of clause 3.


Those people will say "Hang on: didn't this Government pass legislation that was supposed to help village stores by allowing them rate relief? Now we find that our village store does not qualify." I cannot believe that that is one of the Minister's purposes; I am sure that he wants the Bill to be as wide-ranging as possible.
The amendments seek to help the Minister achieve what I imagine to be his aim by sweeping away the loopholes—and the restrictions—that the Government have, with unnecessary ingenuity, sought to introduce. They remove the restrictive definition, of a food store, and redefine an essential shop, in ways that I shall discuss later. In fact, they serve various purposes. First, and perhaps most important, they are deregulatory. I am sure that those running small village shops and suffering an ever-increasing burden of red tape would welcome a deregulatory alteration in the Bill. Perhaps even more relevant, however, is amendment No. 4, which seeks to be forward-looking in the definition of an essential service.
At present, the Government are stuck in an unfortunate backward-looking mindset. According to clause 3, the only essential village shop is a food shop. No doubt historically food was ultimately the one thing that people looked for in village shops, but, as the Minister will know, what can be provided in local shops, and what needs to be provided as a local service, is changing more rapidly than ever before. My amendments seek to enable the Government to modernise. I use that word deliberately to entice the Minister.
The Minister will know as well as I do that food is an essential service. No one would deny that quality of life in any village is enormously improved by the existence of a food store, but there are many other essential services. In the House and outside, we have had many intense discussions about benefit payments, particularly through electronic means, and how to preserve village post offices. Other members of the Government are, rightly, deeply concerned that those who may not be well enough off to afford a computer, or who may not have easy access to a large town where there are internet cafés or libraries, should have internet access. Those are examples of services that will be as essential as the provision of food. The full range of civilising opportunities that are available to those who live in urban areas should be available to those who live in rural areas. That is at the heart of amendment No. 4.
Of course, that small list cannot be regarded as exhaustive because, in the years ahead, other services will be regarded as being essential to preserving commercial activities in a village. The chief merit of amendment No. 4 is that it does not seek to be prescriptive—to lay down what is an essential service in village shop. It says that a shop will be eligible if it provides
essential goods or services to the community in which it is located, such goods or services to be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order".
The framing of the amendment is deliberate. It is flexible enough to accommodate changing and developing priorities as time goes on. It has been drafted in that way to allow the next Government, who will be elected shortly, the freedom to help to keep a village shop that is offering whatever are the essential services of the day going.
In the past 10 years, all hon. Members have seen enough changes in retailing and enough expansion in the services that we regard as essential to know that it is

foolish for the House to set down what those essential services will be. If we have the opportunity to introduce flexibility in legislation, it is sensible to do so. That is why I believe that the amendments that Mr. Speaker has kindly selected improve the Bill.
None of us can know what is the key to keeping people spending money in small rural communities. I make no apology for returning to that point because we are seeking to maintain a commercial infrastructure in small rural communities. We do not know what people in those communities will want to spend money on in future. With the amendment, we do not need to. The House can afford a modest level of extra protection to those village shops without attempting to second-guess the future.
Throughout the stages of the Bill, which has been rushed through so expeditiously, we have attempted to make it more generous. This is the last group of the amendments that the House will discuss. I very much regret that the Government have rejected all our previous suggested improvements, albeit with one or two hints from the Minister that they will consider some of our exceptionally sensible suggestions. Nevertheless, despite the Government's consistent rejection of our proposals, Opposition Members are generous at heart and will continue to rehearse the arguments about how the House can make better laws—a skill that we shall soon be practising full-time.
In that spirit, I commend the amendment to the Minister and the House.

Mr. Gray: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) on such a comprehensive review of the necessity for the amendments, especially as, from the sound of his voice, he seemed to be suffering just a bit towards the end of his remarks. To carry on in those circumstances seems to be noble beyond the call of duty, and I congratulate him.
I am glad that the amendments in this group have been selected because they go to the heart of what is wrong with the Bill. I do not say that in an unfriendly or ungracious manner. Although the Bill is, as we have said on many occasions, a small and inadequate measure compared with the size of the problem currently facing rural areas, hon. Members representing rural constituencies such as mine very much support the broad thrust of its objectives. Therefore, when I attack the Bill, I do not mean it in an ungenerous sense. I make it plain that we support its broad thrust.
Including the word "food" in clause 3, which deals with village shops and stores, cuts the heart out of what could otherwise be very useful provisions. We are talking about rural villages with fewer than 3,000 people but with more than one non-food store. I thought that, in considering amendment No. 2, it might be useful to consider some precise case studies which I conducted recently in my constituency in the aftermath of the foot and mouth crisis.
My constituency has three or four largeish towns, but about 60 villages that are precisely like those described in the Bill and which have been very severely affected by the crisis. [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) knows the Cotswolds and perhaps even those 60 villages very well from her time at Cheltenham Ladies college. Then again, perhaps Cheltenham Ladies college does not give its students sufficient away days to discover the area. It is a


very expensive boarding school and may keep its students in all the time. However, if she had gone for a little trip down the road to my constituency, she would easily have discovered that we have 60 villages across the constituency. However, she must forgive me. If she had not sedentarily doubted my word in that way, I would not have raised the politically embarrassing background that she constantly tries to live down.
As I said, we have 60 villages across my constituency, and they are precisely the type of place that has been affected by the foot and mouth crisis in tourism, especially because of the cancellation of Badminton and all the rest of it. They are precisely the types of places that would benefit from the Bill's provisions.
Immediately after the crisis began, I went round to those villages, taking with me 2,000 copies of a survey asking them exactly how bad they had fared in the aftermath of the foot and mouth crisis. I dished out the survey to pubs, cafes, garages and tourist shops in villages such as Castle Combe, which hon. Members may remember is the very famous village where they filmed "Dr. Doolittle", and Lacock, which is a very picturesque village. They are small villages with only two or three shops, some of which admittedly are antique shops. I have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford that the Government seem to have it in a bit for antique shops.
Although some of the shops sell antiques, most tend primarily to be a combination of the small tourist shop and the classic village shop. Confectionery is very important in that context, as people who go to Lacock, Castle Combe and Corsham like ice creams, for example. I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether ice cream is included in his definition of the word confectionery, which is excluded from the Bill. It seems sad to me that those confectionery shops, into which the tourists flock in Lacock to get their ice creams and sweeties to eat, will be excluded. If the village shop has the temerity to have a microwave to heat up the Cornish pasties so beloved of the tourists, it will be excluded, and that seems wrong to me.
10.45 pm
Before we move on to the detail of the amendments, I shall share with the House the early results of my survey. So far I have only had 200 or 300 returned, but they are from exactly the sort of businesses that we are talking about. The people who replied say that year on year, their income has declined. In four consecutive weeks, first two, then another two, then four, then six, said that their income had declined by 100 per cent. compared with this time last year. Out of perhaps 100 returns so far, the income of about 10 per cent. of the shops had declined by 100 per cent. Others declare varying rates of decline.
A few comments from the survey might be useful. For example, Mr. and Mrs. Pask from the County Stores wrote:
Reduction on rates would help".
Mr. Poole of the Wilts Printing Works wrote:
Reduced wages for all employees. Closure possible".

Mrs. Tubb, of Tubbjoys Antiques in Wootton Bassett—I am sorry to be awkward by bringing an antique shop into the debate—wrote:
Cut back hours … Lost one member of staff
and Mr. Ivory of the Old Dairy Saddlery in Tockenham wrote that he had laid off two people already. Kate Short, of the Blue Door Art Gallery—art galleries would not be covered, either—wrote:
Virtually no tourists; no American visitors. The Easter week was particularly terrible.
Richard Bridge described
Severe cash flow problems … a threat to the survival of the business.
Those are a small sample of many such comments from all over the constituency. I shall ensure that the Minister has sight of the full results of the survey if he is interested, when I have them all in and have collated them. I fear that that may be after the election—so it may well be my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford to whom I will send those results, rather than the present Minister.
The exercise was a fascinating survey of precisely the kind of businesses that would benefit from the Bill. Specifically excluding stores other than food stores rips the whole heart out of the Bill. I am talking about sweet shops and antique shops of all kinds. People drop in and buy a few things, such as a present to take home with them. That sort of purchase is essential in places such as Wootton Bassett, Chippenham, Corsham and Lacock. People pass by, go and see the local tourist site, and then drop into a shop to buy something. That sort of purchase is essential to the people who are really suffering.
Those people were suffering even before the foot and mouth crisis, partly because of the cost of living in that part of the world. Now they are suffering terribly. We are not seeing the Americans, or the other passing tourists. The three big horse events in the area—the Badminton horse trials, which 250,000 people attend every year, the Cheltenham festival, and the Bath and West show—have all been cancelled. Hundreds of thousands of people who would normally have come into my area at about this time of year are not there. The little shops are suffering as a result.
That is why I welcomed the general thrust and purpose of the Bill, and liked the sound of its title when I first heard about it. It is only when one looks at it in more detail—it is a shame that we had less time than we should have had to consider it in Committee yesterday—that one finds that it excludes anything that is not a qualifying food store, and anything that sells confectionery or supplies food in the course of catering. Those seem to me major exceptions that wreck what would otherwise be a perfectly sensible Bill.
The Bill will go to the other place for further consideration tomorrow, and I know that many of the Members there will have stores such as those that I have described very much in mind. I therefore hope that by the time the Bill gets there tomorrow, the Minister will have listened carefully to those considerations and will think carefully about the amendments that my hon. Friends have tabled to clause 3. I hope that he will bear in mind the fact that the proposals in the consultation paper were made before foot and mouth, and although they may well have been reasonable at that time, things were not as bad in those days as they are now.
In the light of the foot and mouth crisis, and the kind of catastrophe that is affecting businesses such as those that I have described in my constituency, I hope that—late as the hour is tonight, and early as it will be tomorrow in the other place—the Minister may yet consider expanding the terms of the Bill so that all the businesses that have been so badly affected by the foot and mouth crisis can be helped by the provision as of this otherwise perfectly reasonable Bill.

Mr. Brian Cotter: I also support the important amendments tabled by he hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). It is difficult, in the light of the crisis in the countryside, to see why the rate relief assistance should be confined to food shops. The hon. Gentleman asked who are we to decide what sort of business will be important in the future or which areas may require certain types of business to be viable. For example, a small village by a canal may require a shop selling equipment for boating or fishing. Many villages need a chemist or hardware shop, because those goods are not always available in food shops. Information will be important in the future, and villages will require internet centres. Many other services could be vital. Jobs are also important: for example, a local potter or craftsman may wish to sell his products in a small shop in a village.
I hope that the Minister will seriously consider the amendments, because it seems unnecessary—in view of the small amount of relief that will be provided—to confine the relief to food shops. My village has a shop that sells small items of pine furniture and little items of an antique nature, and that is important to people locally and it keeps jobs in the rural community. I especially support amendment No. 4 and look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): These four amendments concern the definition of food shops, to which the Bill will extend mandatory rate relief. Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 5 would delete references to "food" in clause 3 and in the title of the Bill. On their own, they would have no practical effect, because a qualifying store would still be defined by reference to the sale of food. However, that would be altered by amendment No. 4, which would replace the definition of a food shop with a new order-making power to allow mandatory relief to any shop providing essential goods and services, as defined by the Secretary of State by order. That would have the effect of making the introduction of the Bill more complicated.
An order would still be required under the new power to extend mandatory relief to food shops other than the sole general store. As for other essential goods and services, mandatory relief can already be extended to them under the existing order-making powers, which we used recently to cover pubs and petrol stations. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said that the purpose of his amendments was to improve the Bill but, as with other amendments he tabled in Committee, they would widen the scope of the proposals. The Bill is not intended to provide rate relief to all small businesses. It is intended as a measure to provide relief for shops providing essential food in small rural villages.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said that there were 60 villages in his constituency. For one tantalising moment, I thought that he was going to give

an example of one for which the provisions of the Bill would need to be extended. However, he went on to talk about shops serving the tourist trade, and about antique shops and sweet shops. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) spoke about internet services, potters and craft shops.
The Government aim to introduce measures to amend rates for all small businesses, and those matters remain to be discussed. Last year's rural White Paper dealt with the matters covered in the Bill, and commitments were made. The Bill allows us to address problems that we know exist in those small villages where the sole general store gets mandatory rate relief. Councils in rural areas feel obliged to extend concessionary rate relief to other food stores in those villages, and the Bill deals with that. It does not extend to non-essential small businesses, no matter how desirable they are.
If the Opposition believe that the Bill should extend wider, they must say how they would pay for that, given that they are committed to a programme of massive public spending cuts. Moreover, the previous Conservative Government introduced the national non-domestic rates system in 1990. Small businesses in rural communities have experienced crises for a long time, but the previous Government did absolutely nothing to help. They did not introduce a measure along the lines of the Bill, or any measure to deal with the problems encountered by solé general stores, pubs and petrol stations. The Conservatives believe the Bill to be inadequate, so why did they do nothing when they were in government?

Mr. Gray: I shall try to ignore the party political polemic into which the Minister has allowed himself to slip. The previous Government did not act in the way that he suggested for the simple reason that there was no foot and mouth disease outbreak during our period in office.
The Minister said that he thought that I had not mentioned any essential store in the countryside that would not be covered by clause 3. It may sound a little foreign to someone representing Coventry, North-East, but the horse industry is essential in my area. I mentioned Mr. Ivory's saddlery in the village of Tockenham, and I could have spoken about a horse supplier in Malmsbury for whom the cancellation of the various events that I mentioned earlier has caused great difficulty. The closure of paths has meant that no hunting is taking place, so businesses in the horse sector are in severe crisis. The Bill does not help them at all.

Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman's prejudices extend far and wide, from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) to Coventry. They know no bounds.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that the only reason that the previous Government did nothing was because they did not have a foot and mouth outbreak. What about the numbers of village schools, post offices and essential village shops that closed when the previous Government were in power, during which time they did nothing?
The Bill is not about foot and mouth. The Government have introduced other measures to deal with the problems of foot and mouth, such as hardship rate relief, deferred rate payments and reductions in rateable value to reflect temporary reductions in property values. This measure seeks to underpin essential services for people living in


small rural communities, and I should have thought that it was in the interests of the Opposition to give it their support and allow it to pass through. To do so, they should withdraw these unnecessary amendments.

11 pm

Mr. Green: The Minister's speech was extraordinary. He started by ignoring the fact that everyone on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches thought that this was a sensible group of amendments. As he ploughed through his speech, he realised that that was an unprofitable road to go down, so he went on to say that the Government did not want to accept the amendment because it was not part of the Bill's original intention. That is fair enough. Of course it was not—that is why the Bill needs to be amended and improved. That is the purpose of amendments.
We are not arguing about why it might be better, as the Minister said, to leave the Bill as it was. The Minister simply referred to the original intention of the Bill and to what was promised in the rural White Paper, but he will recognise that circumstances have changed and worsened radically over the past 12 months since the White Paper's publication. A more generous response may be needed now, even if the Government thought, in good faith, that their response was adequate when they published that White Paper. So that argument was not particularly convincing.
Least convincing of all was the early statement in the Minister's speech, which he returned to at the end, about the purpose of clause 3 and about the reliefs being introduced to help shops that provide essential goods or services. Those are precisely the words used in amendment No. 4. I took them from the phrase that the hon. Gentleman and the Minister for Local Government and the Regions used repeatedly on Second Reading and in Committee. They said that the underlying purpose of the rate reliefs proposed in clause 3 was to help preserve the provision of essential goods and services in rural areas. It seemed to me not incompatible with the Government's aims to insert an amendment that would make that explicit, thus making the scope of the Bill's provisions wider and more generous.

Mr. Leigh: Traditional food shops in small villages have had to diversify. They cannot remain in business simply by selling food. We are really talking about gesture politics. How many village shops in rural areas and small villages will the Bill help? It will not provide the means by which village shops can be saved, because they have already had to diversify.

Mr. Green: My hon. Friend makes the powerful point that sensible and forward-looking village shops are already diversifying. The purpose of the amendments is to highlight that future generations of village shops may he very different animals, providing a different range of essential goods and services—to use the phrase that the Minister used several times.
The provision of essential services should be at the root of what we are trying to do. The purpose of the modest amendments is to enable the Government to achieve what they say are their own ends, but clearly they reject

that idea. I sensed that, with characteristic honesty, the Minister accepted that his arguments were not going well because he resorted to cheap, party political polemic, which had been notably absent from our discussions of the Bill at every stage. I took it as a compliment on the standard of the arguments that have been made from those on the Opposition Benches that the Minister could not make any points in argument against what Conservative Members and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) have said, and had to resort to party political insults.
I very much regret the tone and content of the Minister's response, but we are seeking to make progress with the Bill, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is a short but useful Bill. We have had an opportunity to debate its two substantial measures, and the wider issues that they raise, at Second Reading last week, in Committee yesterday, and again today. I am grateful to hon. Members for their co-operation in ensuring the Bill's rapid passage. We all want the benefits that it will bring to rural businesses to be in place as soon as possible.
The Bill will provide help to farmers who wish to diversify, and to village food shops and the communities that they serve. In both cases, it will reduce their costs by cutting their rate bills by at least 50 per cent.
These measures must not be viewed in isolation. They are part of our wider policies to support farming and rural communities. They arise from last year's action plan for farming and the rural White Paper, which are delivering further support to those communities.
The measures in the Bill were originally proposed last year. They are not specifically in response to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, but the assistance that they will provide to farmers and to village food shops will now be even more welcome to those rural businesses. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Green: I am grateful for the Minister's generous words about Opposition Members' co-operation during the Bill's rapid passage through the House. Of course we have co-operated with the measure, because the Conservative party is the party that represents the British countryside and those who live and seek to have their livelihood within it If there were any last scintilla of doubt attending on that proposition, I would merely point out to the House that throughout this Parliament there has been a group called the Labour rural group of MPs, which claims to be 168 strong, and of those 168 champions of rural Britain, none, as far as my memory serves me, has contributed to our debate over the past couple of hours. That tells us all that we need to know about the attitude of those Labour Members who seek to represent rural constituencies.
As we reach the Bill's final stage in the House, Opposition Members have continued to make what we genuinely believe are constructive suggestions to make


the Bill more generous and practical and to widen the scope of its provisions. It would then provide more assistance than the modest amount of help it currently offers.
Given that, in Committee, the Minister and his colleague the Minister for Local Government and the Regions said that several of the suggestions that Conservative Members had made were in principle worth looking at, it is genuinely disappointing that we have not seen a single Government amendment during the course of this week. The Government are aware of the pressure points that we have identified and the improvements that could be made to the Bill.
We in the Opposition have worked very hard. Despite the very fast passage of the Bill—its stages have been taken on successive days—we have tabled amendments at every stage. Given the resources available to the Government, I cannot believe that it would have been beyond their ken to do the same and make some of the improvements that, I suspect, they will realise need to be made. I am not speaking exclusively about the amendments tabled by Conservative Members. We voted in favour of one amendment that was tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). Sadly, he is no longer in his place, which is a shame because I wish to pay him tribute for moving that extremely sensible amendment. I wish to do so not least because I suspect that it would be a valedictory tribute given that we do not expect him to grace our debates after the general election.

Mr. Gray: When my hon. Friend mistakenly referred to the fact that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was no longer in his place earlier this evening, the hon. Gentleman reacted with anger and bitterness, saying that my hon. Friend's comments were disgraceful and that he had been here, but was speaking to Mr. Speaker. We now find that the hon. Gentleman has gone home to bed. Is that not disgraceful?

Mr. Green: My hon. Friend makes his point. I have no desire to criticise the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Cotter: rose—

Mr. Green: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We are getting slightly off the subject, so perhaps it is as well to remind the House that, on Third Reading, we should discuss what is in the Bill, not what is not in it.

Mr. Green: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that guidance. The Bill would have been improved if the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome had been accepted in Committee. I shall happily give way if the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) still wishes to intervene, but I am making no personal criticism of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome; I am simply saying that he will lose his seat to his Conservative opponent.
This small and modest Bill will do some important things, but everyone admits that it is relatively insignificant compared with the scale of the problem that

faces those who seek to make and preserve their livelihoods in rural Britain today. As we know, the Bill will introduce 50 per cent. mandatory rate relief for five years for land and buildings that had previously been used for agricultural purposes. The relief will be limited to properties with rateable values of less than £6,000. The Bill will extend the 50 per cent. mandatory rate relief on sole rural shops and post offices, which was introduced by the previous Government, contrary to the slightly wild statements that the Minister made previously. Again, it states that those shops must have a rateable value of not more than £6,000.
I repeat that we support the Bill in principle because it will provide some small help, but there are many problems and criticisms, the bulk of which relate to the Bill's basic details. First, as has been said several times during the debates, the limit on the rateable value of less than £6,000 is inconsistent with the Government's view of small businesses in other parts of the economy.
The Minister made the point in an earlier debate that the relief was supposed not to be general, but targeted on small businesses. Yet it is targeted on businesses with a rateable value of less than £6,000, whereas small businesses are defined in the most recent Green Paper on the subject from the Department of Trade and Industry as those with a rateable value of less than £8,000. Four years on, we are still not being treated to the joined-up government that we were promised.
The DTI and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions evidently take a fundamentally different view of what constitutes a small business. Regrettably, when dealing with the small business sector that faces the worst crisis of any of the crises faced by small businesses—those attempting to survive in rural areas—those in the DETR have chosen a less generous definition of such businesses than their colleagues in the DTI. The Minister will be aware that that is inadequate.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government are responding, in part, to representations made by the Council for the Protection of Rural England that to give such relief to substantial businesses could have deleterious consequences for the environment that we are trying to protect?

Mr. Green: I do not think that is quite what the CPRE said, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point. If he is saying that businesses with a rateable value of £8,000 are big fat cats who do not deserve help, I suspect that he and I would be as one in thinking that view was wrong. Indeed, even if he and I disagreed on that point, he may agree with his colleagues in the DTI who appear to accept it as a definition of a small business. I am happy to take the Government's definition of what constitutes a small business. In Committee, I tabled an amendment that would have substituted £8,000 for £6,000, but it was rejected by Ministers. I was merely trying to make the Government's position more coherent.

Mr. Gray: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) is missing the point? The potentially damaging effects on the environment of bigger businesses in the countryside would be covered by the stringent and rigorous planning regime. Even if one wanted to set up an environmentally
deleterious business in a converted farm building, one could not do so. The size of the rateable value is thus irrelevant in environmental terms.

Mr. Green: My hon. Friend is right; environmental considerations should always be at the forefront of our mind when considering business development in rural areas. However, Bills dealing with rate relief, such as this one, should not be the lever for ensuring that appropriate environmental protection is imposed. Such protection is extremely important, but that is why there are planning regulations.
I hope that the Government will take on board the strictures of the National Farmers Union. It made a small number of sensible suggestions for improvements to the Bill—none of which the Government have chosen to take up or even to address. I cannot believe that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions did not receive the same NFU briefing, so he will be aware that the union is worried about the discretionary element which could lead to "competitive distortion" between local authorities. That is not because one local authority is more generous than another, but because some local authorities have more money available. The problem is genuine and although the means to address it are not necessarily obvious, the Government may well need to do so.
Another problem outlined by the NFU and for which it offered the Minister a solution is the fact that rate relief will be restricted to a maximum of five years, but will start only from the fixed date. Thus, someone who wanted to diversify a farm business three or four years after the commencement order under the Bill will not gain the full rate relief. Such a person might take business decisions based on the amount of rate relief that might theoretically be available, rather than on sensible business criteria. There was widespread agreement that that part of the Bill should be improved as it is likely to lead to problems.
We have held extensive discussions as to whether third parties who rent diversified agricultural land and buildings would benefit—another of the points raised by various of the bodies that have carefully considered the Bill. The Minister for Local Government and the Regions told us firmly that the definition of hereditaments that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) had obtained from the Library was out of date, and that there was an extant, agreed legal definition—such that third parties who rented out buildings would be eligible for rate relief. We are, of course, happy to accept the Minister's assurance—we are sure that she is extremely well briefed. I only hope that she is right, not least for the sake of the Government's legal bills in years to come.
Also serious is the potential unfairness to existing riding schools. If things go wrong, the Bill might have a genuinely perverse impact on this country's equestrian sector. The Minister for Local Government and the Regions assured my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire that she took on board many of his points about the inadequacy of the Bill as drafted in terms of its effect on the equestrian sector. My fear is that it might damage businesses that are already under pressure. I am sure that everyone on both sides of the House hopes that that will not happen, but it is regrettable that in our proceedings on the Bill we have not improved it so that it can cope with that problem.
The final specific point about the Bill as it stands from which problems might arise is the starting date. The Under-Secretary accepts that the problem of the delays that are inevitable in obtaining planning permission for diversification of farm buildings means that an early commencement date will result in the value of the early months of the rate relief being nugatory for most, if not all businesses, because no one will be able to enjoy the benefits when the delays in planning permission have prevented the businesses from getting started.
The Bill ought to be a lot better than it is, but its contents are better than nothing—extremely lukewarm praise. In terms of effectiveness, the Bill is probably in the top 20 per cent. of Bills introduced by the outgoing Government in that it is, at least, not wholly destructive. On that, I congratulate the Minister. I assure him and the House that when we get the chance, we will introduce our own comprehensive and radical measures that will give better, genuine and more widespread help to farms and other rural businesses.

Mr. Cotter: It has been said that the Bill is not sufficiently extensive either in its scope or in terms of the rateable value that it covers. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and I Frome (Mr. Heath) said, rightly, that the measures it proposes are modest. I am quite sure that he will be in his place in the next Parliament.
As the Minister pointed out, in 18 years the Conservatives did little to support small businesses. Nowadays, they speak at length about small businesses, claim that they are the friends of small businesses and outline all the things that they will do for small businesses given the chance. None the less, the fact remains that although they had 18 years to work for small businesses, they failed to do so. We witnessed numerous bankruptcies and the problems that businesses experienced during the various recessions that they had to endure.

Mr. Green: The Bill amends an Act that was passed in 1988. Who does the hon. Gentleman think was in power when that Act, which introduced rate relief for businesses, was passed?

Mr. Cotter: The hon. Gentleman goes on about how much more should be done, but the Tories had a long time in which they could have done far better.
The Liberal Democrats have a clear scheme: relief for all businesses of less than £25,000 rateable value; and for the first £1,500 of rateable value, small businesses would be entirely let off, which would assist them greatly.
I am worried about the rateable values. The Association of Convenience Stores is clear that the £6,000 threshold is not enough. It believes that the threshold will help only a small number of shops because just a few will be eligible. Although the £9,000 rate for pubs is little higher, it has to take into account the fact that they often have living accommodation. Therefore, the same consideration applies. The organisation representing pub owners has made it clear that a business of that rateable value is almost unviable. There are concerns about the detail.
A little work through the House of Commons Library exposed the fact that the Bill's provisions amount to a modest relief of only £3 million. If the Minister disagrees with that figure, I shall be glad to hear his comments.

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is right: the Library estimates that £3 million a year and £16 million in total


will be spent. How much would the scheme cost if it applied to the rateable value of £25,000, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats?

Mr. Cotter: The total amount spent would greatly relieve small businesses, which is the main consideration. The bill would be met in a neat fashion by adjusting the rates that the bigger concerns pay, which are out of kilter with what the smaller firms pay. Our proposal would cost the Exchequer nothing because we would play one off against the other.
In the spirit of tonight's end-of-term atmosphere, we are, at least, making a step in the right direction, and I hope that more will be taken. The Government said in Committee that, if they have a chance, they will suggest other proposals. We were especially concerned about the five-year limit that has been placed on providing assistance to business, which is a short time. We have to accept—or at least hope—that the Government will address the problem more broadly to cover rateable values for all businesses. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.

Mr. Gray: I want to reiterate a point that has been made, and shall be brief. Although we welcome the ability of farmers to diversify and the provision of help to some village stores, one sector might be badly damaged. We have been losing about 200 to 250 riding schools a year because of the business rates that bear down heavily on them. The Bill allows a farm to diversify. It could decide to run a livery yard, a pony trekking business or a riding stables. That would put the existing riding school at the end of the drive into an unfortunate competitive position. According to the British Horse Society and the Association of British Riding Schools, that could spell disaster for riding schools.
Instead of the 50 per cent. rating outlined in the Bill, all equestrian businesses should be zero rated. Any new or existing horse business should be exempted from business rates. The easiest way to do that is to redefine the horse as an agricultural animal. If a farmer uses a shed for heavy horses, those animals count as agricultural animals and he pays no business rates on the property, but if he uses that shed for breeding any other horse, including a racehorse, he pays business rates. That is absurd.
The Government might also consider exempting new and existing horse businesses from business rates. Only by doing so can they possibly have a hope of saving these businesses. In the United Kingdom, 2.4 million people enjoy riding horses, so it is a very important industry. If the Bill goes through as it stands, it poses the real risk of wrecking those businesses. At the very last moment, on behalf of the horse industry and the people who enjoy riding, I appeal to the Minister to think again about what can be done to correct the Bill so that the industry can be saved.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly to some of the points that have been made.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) was right to say that, despite some of the comments that have been made tonight, the Bill's Committee stage was fairly

constructive. Plenty of time was available and the debates were not curtailed. We agreed to consider some of the issues that had been raised, and we can do that without delaying the Bill's passage through the House. By allowing it to reach the statute book, we will be able to provide the useful reliefs that are contained in it.
I told the hon. Gentleman that I would consider the issue of commencement, and he also said that he was concerned about the discretionary element of the Bill. It will introduce mandatory relief for small shops in rural villages, and I hope that he is not suggesting that he wants to remove local authorities' ability to provide discretionary relief over and above that provided for by the Bill.

Mr. Green: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman suggests that he does not want to do that.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions gave the hon. Gentleman clear definitions of hereditament, and I assure him that they are correct. He need have no worry about their application.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) and others have tried to suggest that the measures in the Bill are modest. I think that there is wide consensus in the House on the need to encourage, when appropriate, farms businesses to diversify into other sectors. There is a psychological barrier on agricultural businesses crossing the threshold that means that they are subject to rates for the first time. However, the estimates of the cost of the measures in the Bill to help farms to diversify are between £16 million and £96 million, depending on take-up. It is estimated that the measures apply to 3,000 food shops that are not in rural villages with a population of fewer than 3,000, so our proposals are not as modest as some Opposition Members would have us believe.
The hon. Member for Ashford said that, given the opportunity, the Conservatives would introduce comprehensive and radical measures to help small businesses. Although Liberal Democrat Members accused me of engaging in party political polemic when I made the point that talk is cheap, we have read the book about the 18 years that the Conservatives were in office. They will, therefore, have to explain why what they now say about assistance to small businesses is different from what they practised when they were in power. They also have to explain how they would square the circle. When we debate our proposals in the House, they say that they do not go far enough and that more should be spent on this or that sector. However, they are committed to a massive programme of cuts. Their proposals do not add up.
On the small businesses that are not covered by the measures in the Bill, the Green Paper on local government finance proposed rate relief for all small businesses. It is targeted at those with a rateable value of above £6,000, and a taper goes up to a rateable value of £8,000. The Government are committed to considering the issue and legislation will be forthcoming on another occasion.
On this occasion, however, we have the opportunity to pass two useful measures that will help our rural communities and will assist farming businesses to


diversify into other sectors. I commend the Bill to the House, and I hope that it receives the support of hon. Members.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

PETITION

Genetically Modified Crops

Mr. Tony McWalter: It is my pleasure to submit to the House a petition from 7,059 residents of west Hertfordshire. The petition states:
The Petition of residents of West Hertfordshire
Declares that the testing of genetically modified crops in farm-scale trials at Wood Farm, Piccotts End, Hemel Hempstead:
—has not been approved in any local consultation
—will have irreversible effects on the local ecology
—poses potential threats to husbandry and human health.
The Petitioners (7059) therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Minister of State for the Environment to halt these trials and ensure the destruction and safe disposal of these crops.
To lie upon the Table.

Abuse of Planning Controls

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Mr. Charles Wardle: I have applied for this Adjournment debate to draw the attention of the House to the alleged abuse of planning controls at Rother district council in my constituency. I wish to make it clear from the outset that the irregularities to which I shall refer do not arise from any obvious deficiency in planning legislation nor, so far as I can tell, are they the result of maladministration or neglect by council planning staff. The problems that I shall highlight are, allegedly, the result of collusion between so-called property developers and councillors, involving bribery and senior council members having undue influence over their colleagues. I shall argue that those matters should be thoroughly investigated.
This is not the first time in this Parliament that I have shared with the House the results of my research into controversial issues on which it has become clear to me that answers, explanations and action are needed. I am pleased that, as a result of those earlier debates, positive steps were taken in each instance although, in some cases, more still needs to be done. I can at least claim with some confidence that the topics that I aired in that way were not trivial; I investigated them carefully before referring them to the House.
My most recent attempt to elicit open answers to several related questions was on 30 March, when I introduced the Second Reading of my Bill requiring freemasons elected to public office to register their interest. My speech that day was restricted to a mere 25 minutes or so because of a determined effort by some hon. Members to talk out the preceding business, for whatever motive. In the limited time available, I did not have an opportunity to speak about past links between various London criminals, including the Brinks-Mat bullion gang—Kenneth Noye and his solicitor are both freemasons—and freemasons in East Sussex. Those matters, made known to me by a retired head of the Metropolitan police crime squad, Mr. Brian Boyce, would, I believe, have illuminated my arguments in favour of masonic councillors registering their interests as freemasons.
There is a direct connection between my call for openness on masonic interests and the subject of this debate, as allegatios of planning abuse and councillors' impropriety were first raised with me by an elderly freemason, Mr. Eric Johnson, who, for many years, was a distinguished councillor. He advised me that a few fellow freemasons, including one or two councillors, were complicit in a property scam to take advantage of a woman landowner, who is now about 80.
Mr. Johnson alleged that there had been embezzlement, tax fraud, planning abuse and bribery concerning the purchase and sale of land for development at artificial prices. He spoke of inducements paid to a councillor to influence the granting or withholding of planning consent, and allegations of covert payment to a representative of a building firm, Fairelough Homes, by means of which a pension fund of at least £80,000 had secretly been provided.
I then spoke to the elderly landowner, Mrs. Pamela Ward-Jones, who reinforced the allegations. She referred me to her professional advisers, including a solicitor, Mr. Patrick Battersby, a banker, Mr. Graham Carn, and a distinguished chartered surveyor in East Sussex, Mr. Clifford Dann. All these people told me that they had carefully examined a number of property transactions involving on the one hand, Mrs. Ward-Jones, and on the other, a Mr. Ken Jolly and a Mr. Barry Eades.
I understand from reliable professional sources that Mr. Eades is a fugitive from this country, following disputes with the Inland Revenue and also, apparently, with dubious sources of property finance in south London. Mr. Johnson advised me—and other Bexhill residents confirmed—that Jolly and Eades are both freemasons. So was a local councillor alleged in statements given to Mrs. Ward-Jones's solicitors by other constituents to have been paid by Jolly to influence planning decisions. I shall not name this councillor in the House because he would not be able to answer for himself, as he died abroad, I am sorry to say, not long after my inquiries into these matters were made known to the local authority chief executive, the Serious Fraud Office and the inland Revenue.
Mr. Battersby told me that his client, Mrs. Ward-Jones, claims that Jolly and Eades tried to bankrupt her by procuring that her bank manager refused her credit when she could show adequate means of raising finance. He added the suggestion that Jolly and Eades acted with other parties through whom improper dealings were procured through contacts that they made as freemasons, but he rightly insisted that there was no suggestion that any masonic lodge itself was involved in impropriety. The allegation was merely that individuals involved in the alleged wrongdoing had been drawn together by their common membership of freemasonry.
Among the property sites in which Jolly and Eades became involved improperly, according to Mrs. Ward-Jones, were Willow Way, Top Acre and Curles Farm, but the most controversial planning history seems to relate to land off Spindlewood drive, Cooden, and at Old Harrier kennels, Maple walk, Cooden. That included some eight acres of land that Mrs. Ward-Jonas had provisionally agreed to sell to Bovis Homes for development.
Although the land was not earmarked in a rather outdated local development plan, it was at first approved by council members, and then, after local elections, the approval was reversed, against the recommendation of planning officers. Mrs. Ward-Jones appealed against refusal. Some months later, her appeal was dismissed on the grounds that a much-delayed deposit draft local plan was not in place, and it was then fore not technically possible to earmark fresh areas for development beyond the limits of the old plan.
According to Mr. Clifford Dann, the significance of the Maple walk and Spindlewood drive sites was that when Mrs. Ward-Jones appealed against refusal, a local firm, Freshfield Properties Ltd., acting in concert with Mr. Jolly's company, Buxton Homes, wrote to her suggesting that the elected members of the council who had just refused her permission could be persuaded to do an immediate volte-face.
Mr. Peter Gooch of Freshfield Properties wrote:
We believe that a revised planning application to Rother District Council may now be more favourably recived…To achieve this we need to employ the services of Buxton Homes—

that is, Mr. Jolly—
who have persuaded us in their belief that they can achieve the desired goal … in the next few weeks.
Mr. Gooch went on:
We would like to proceed with a purchase"—
from Mrs. Ward-Jones—
before the date of any appeal hearing… The reasons why this planning opportunity has arisen are complicated… You do have opponents to your sites on the committee and a fresh approach may be a way of overcoming these difficulties.
On a plan attached to the letter was a note to the effect that the plan would be submitted to the council on the advice of the late councillor who died abroad earlier this year. Mr. Dann asked how it could possibly be in Mrs. Ward-Jones's best interests to sell the land to Mr. Gooch and Mr. Jolly, and challenged them to explain why they believed members of the council would so swiftly contradict the beliefs that had resulted in the recent refusals. No answer was given, and the offer was not taken up by Mrs. Ward-Jones.
As I have already said, I referred these matters to the Serious Fraud Office and the Inland Revenue. The latter has yet to respond to me, but Ms Helen Garlick, a senior advisory lawyer at the SFO, has done so. She said that the SFO tends to deal with cases involving at least £1 million. She doubted whether witnesses could now be found who would be capable of giving admissible evidence of corrupt conduct in a criminal trial. In her opinion, the case was more suitable for determination in a civil court.
Civil proceedings are a matter for Mrs. Ward-Jones and her solicitor to decide on. For the Minister and for the elected members of Rother district council, there is much to review and to investigate further.
The council's planning committee has been chaired since the last election by Councillor Brian Kentfield, a past master of a masonic lodge in Battle and a close colleague of the recently deceased councillor who was the subject of many of the allegations to which I have alluded. If integrity is to be seen to be preserved, it is for Councillor Kentfield to take the initiative and to seek an independent review by someone completely free of connections with freemasonry. Other members of the planning committee have spoken freely of heavy-handed lobbying by senior colleagues over planning decisions put before them. For the sake of Mrs. Ward-Jones, and for the council's good name, these matters should be examined impartially and without further delay.
When Mr. Johnson first drew my attention to these allegations of planning abuse, and the collusion against Mrs. Ward-Jones by what he regarded as a few unscrupulous fellow freemasons, I wrote to Councillor Kentfield and to the local Conservative association, many of whose most senior officers are also councillors, but no explanations were forthcoming. There was only a veil of undisguised animosity at the notion that a wider audience within the party, let alone the public at large, should be made aware of what a few masonic members were doing.
The role of the recently deceased councillor in the local party has now been filled by that councillor's solicitor, who is himself a senior freemason. However, the grand master of Sussex freemasons has written to me assuring me that he will investigate any allegations of wrongdoing among his members. I take him at his word, which I trust he will honour.
It is time that the stables were mucked out. It is time for openness and accountability in the public interest. After 18 years in the House, and particularly in light of the recent withdrawal of the Opposition Whip with all the absurdity and hypocrisy that that has implied, I trust that it can be said that I have been my own man and that I have spoken out in what I believe to be the interests of my constituents whenever I have judged it necessary. I hope that in doing so, I have fulfilled my duty in this place.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) has made serious allegations. When we saw that he had succeeded in getting an Adjournment debate on the abuse of planning controls, we tried to speak to his office to see what it was he wanted to raise.

Mr. Wardle: I did not get that message, and apologise for that. It has always been my practice to help when I can, and I am sorry that there was no reply to the Minister's communication. I saw her sitting on the Front Bench before the debate started, and I wondered whether I should nip over and give her an outline of my concerns. I apologise that she has not had one.

Ms Hughes: No, I have not had one, but I was not criticising the hon. Gentleman. Having heard what he had to say, I wondered whether he deliberately did not want to inform anyone in advance, as the nature of his allegations was very serious. I have some speaking notes about enforcement of planning decisions, planning conditions, section 108 and all the rest of it, none of which is relevant to the points that he has raised. I shall, however, try to make some helpful responses.
The hon. Gentleman made serious allegations about planning abuse and councillors' impropriety. As I think he will agree, he was talking less about abuse of planning controls than about alleged criminal activity, bribes and corruption. He gave details of the circumstances of the allegations, and, indeed, named individuals. I know that, given his experience of raising such matters over many years, he will understand why I cannot comment on such allegations on the Floor of the House.
The hon. Gentleman said that he had talked to the Serious Fraud Office and had been told that for various reasons this was not an appropriate case for the SFO to consider. The complainant has been directed to the civil court. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman seemed to be saying: that does not appear to be a terribly appropriate remedy for someone in such circumstances. The hon. Gentleman did not say whether the allegations had been forwarded to the police, or whether the police had commented. He suggested an independent review by the council. Someone outside the allegations would have to

initiate such a move: DETR has no powers or resources to investigate the matter, because the allegations are of criminal activity, corruption and so on, and a Government Department cannot undertake investigations of that nature. I can think of no avenues to explore on the spur of the moment, but if I think of any that have not occurred to the hon. Gentleman, I shall reply to him.
As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Local Government Act 2000 introduced a new ethical framework for local government, setting out a series of principles relating to issues of the kind that concern him—honesty, integrity, propriety, responsibility and so on. Developed from that set of principles is a code of conduct put together by the Government, the Local Government Association and other interested parties. It includes both the code applying to local councillors and the parallel code applying to officers. The code will require councillors to declare membership of organisations, and freemasons are listed as one such organisation. Under the Act, every council will also be required to have a standards committee It will not be an investigatory committee, but it will be required to ensure that the council concerned has a robust ethical framework; that it is applying, if not the model code of conduct that the Government recommend, its own code based on that model; and that that code is enforced.
There will also be a national standards board, appointments to which I have just completed. The board will be chaired by Anthony Holland, the former chair of the Northern Ireland Parades Commission, who has a robust reputation in he context of such matters. It will have a body of inquiry officers who will undertake investigations of matters such as this—any matters concerning alleged impropriety, dishonesty, wrongdoing or bringing the reputations of councillors or local government into disrepute. It will have power to investigate, to adjudicate and to impose sanctions.
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman—and the Government strongly agree with him—that this is a time for openness in public life, and for transparency. The vast majority of councillors—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares this sentiment—do an excellent job in a spirit of strong public service, and are honest and decent. The minority who behave wrongly and corruptly do a great disservice to the vast majority of upstanding people on our councils. That is why we introduced that framework: not because local government is riddled with corruption—far from it—but to provide a transparent and robust mechanism to protect the representations of the vast majority of decent councillors.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter. I will see whether other avenues are open to the people concerned. I know that the hon. Gentleman is standing down at the forthcoming election and that he is held in high regard for his efforts to bring serious matters to the attention of hon. Members. On behalf of the House, I wish him well for the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Twelve o'clock.